file: fox94b.html
collected by: [email protected]
13 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
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.
Right, and that's all it will do. It is a hard stop.
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.
I don't think there's anything mystical about the Koni bump rubbers. I
don't think they are a "cheat"; in classes like GTO and GTU, spring
rates are unrestricted, so the teams can run any spring they can afford.
Proper use of the bump rubbers allows the use of softer spring rates
than you would need with hard bump stops, resulting in better traction.
That's why I think they are useful for the street, where suspension
travel is necessarily greater than on a race track.
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.
In such an application, the urethane piece is redundant. I don't
understand what advantage you'd get from such a combination.
13 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 12, Ed Welbon wrote:
[re: race pads for the SVO/MarkVII/Continental rear calipers]
> > I have to get race pads custom made for mine.
>
> Who does this for you?
Andy Porterfield. I have also had success in the past getting custom pads from
the models shop at CC Motorsport, afetr spending some time to convince them
that it would be worth their while to do the tooling. This was easy, in the
case of the T-bird Turbo pads. It would be harder in the case of the bigger
calipers.
The other obvious place to check would be Stainless Steel Brakes, since they
still manufacture the calipers. They'd be the most likely to have race pads on
the shelf.
> 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).
It's certainly possible, but it would probably supply only marginal
improvement for the effort. And the gains might be offset by the increased
flexibility of the stamped caliper mount bracket. It's a pretty beefy piece,
but if you're really planning to pound on it, it could use some gusseting. I
modified mine subtly as it was installed (welded in place, since I'm running
the Moser 9" big-bearing housing ends) to run on an 11.0" OD rotor so that I
could run the same rotors-on-hats as the front.
14 Apr 1994
[email protected] (DIRK BROER)
[email protected]
>The ram air kits in the magazines have inlet scoops that are
>like 6" by 1.5" That doesn't seem too large to me. My buddy made
>one (just the other day) with an inlet scoop that is 10"x3". That is 30 sq.
>in. to you and me. I'm thinking of making my inlet round and 6" in diameter.
>That is about 54 sq. in.
Just a minor point but 6" diameter = 3" radius ~ 28 square inches. Now
hooking this to two 3" pipes... 1.5" radius ~ 6 sq in or about 12 sq in
total....
If you were really after the ram effect you mush consider that you have lots
of restrictions in the rest of the intake (MAF, EGR, Throttle...) and you'll
have plenty of problems their. The real advantage of Ram Air is that it
allows colder air to enter the motor. So think adaquate size and think cold
(.ie outside) air.
I would also give some consideration to the vacuum cleaner affect that any
scoop low to the ground would have. Lots of fun stuff to suck in.
I actually considered keeping the front bumber cover from my earlier fender
scraper so that I could devise a clean looking intake a little higher up...
Keeping this in mind it would seem the best solution would be the Cowl
induction hood. Cars with carberators actually could get a cowl induction
effect by removing the rubber seal on the back of the hood. This took
advantage of the high pressure infront of the window. How much air gets under
the hood? Well I had a car with a racing (ie thin) fiber glass hood and at
about 50 mph and above the hood would buldge about 1-2" between the hold down
pins. Still not convinced? Consider that most NASCAR and Trans AM style cars
seal the air cleaner to the back of the hood...
If this isn't your style...
From the Kenne Bell tip sheet
"Use a filter like the tough Kenne Bell Polyester with steel mesh ad
protective cover. This is the same filter used on thousands of Buick Grand
Nationals." This should prevent the dirt piercing the paper filter.
Incidently they claim this modification alon is worth .3sec/3mph (25hp) in the
quarter mile....o.k o.k. just had to throw that in :) I saw a used one for
$70 in the local want ads.
14 Apr 1994
Bob Pitas
Brian St. Denis:
>I'm considering making a ram air kit for my 1992 5.0. My education
>has not been centered around fluid dynamics so I have some questions
>about the size of the inlet scoop.
[stuff deleted]
>The ram air kits in the magazines have inlet scoops that are
>like 6" by 1.5" That doesn't seem too large to me. My buddy made
>one (just the other day) with an inlet scoop that is 10"x3". That is 30 sq.
>in. to you and me. I'm thinking of making my inlet round and 6" in diameter.
>That is about 54 sq. in.
I think that we pre-FI guys are luckier in the ram-air department than your FI
car since we already have two snorkels that go down to within 1' of where the
ram-air should go to take advantage of the high-pressure area under the front
of the car. Because we have two, we can get away with much smaller scoops...
I have two 4" oval scoops (Just a bracket holding some dryer hose squished
vertically so it doesn't bottom on every driveway entrance) and they provide
enough pressure that I can barely measure it on the highway with a boost
guage...
>I would like my kit to work at speeds from about 60 up. I am not trying to
>get any ram air help below track speeds but I would like as much benefit
>as possible. The max speed that this inlet will see will be the maximum
>speed of my stock car (at least 140).
I don't think you can get ram-air to work at all below 60 or so MPH, except as
a way to get cooler air to the motor...
>Thanks for any suggestions.
My biggest suggestion for someone setting up a home-brew ram-air system would
be to make *sure* you put something into the system to keep dirt, leaves and
small rodents out of the aircleaner. You would be amazed at some of the stuff
I've shaken out of my aircleaner, before I put in some screening. I've taken
out a yard's worth of leaves, a dumptruck load of dirt, and enough bugs to
make the bottom of my aircleaner look like the K&N was electrified. I've also
found a pull-tab from a can of soda in there... I have no idea how that got
there. Some of the guys I used to street-race with used to call these systems
"Ram-Dirt", and I've been teased many times about how my car looks like it's
set up to vacuum the streets... Just put some window screen in there
somewhere, or try to find a high-pressure spot where the intake isn't right in
the direct path of incoming dirt, like in front of the tires or near the air-
dam for the radiator... Another idea that Brian had mentioned, some racers
use is to run something between the aircleaner and the place at the base of
the windshield where the heater gets it's air from. Have you ever noticed how
much more air the heater puts out on the highway as compared to tootling
around town?... There's a lot of pressure right at the bottom of the
windshield, especially on an aerodynamic brick like the Mustang...
14 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
All this talk about brakes has inspired me, and I think I finally want to
tackle my pony's brakes in a small way. The recent MM&FF had an article about
a maximum motorsports kit to replace the rubber flex lines on a stock car with
braided lines. They want $110 for the hardware to do this.
I've seen these on the shelf at a nearby Mustang emporium. They have stock-
type fittings at either end with braided hose between. The price seems a bit
steep but they will bolt on just like the stock ones.
I want to replace the rubber lines for two reasons, 1. The car is six years
old, and they don't look great, and 2. I would like the firm pedal associated
with the braided stainless lines.
I've had stock brake hoses fail twice now. If they look bad, they probably
are.
I have two ways to go about this. I can slap down $110 to maximum
motorsports, or, with a LOT of guidance from the brake gurus here, I think I
could get all the parts from Earl's for quite a bit less.
Don't kid yourself! It's not "quite a bit" less by the time you get the
myriad adapters and such. But once it's together, you'll only have to replace
the hoses and crush washers, and not the adaptors, so it is cheaper in the
long run.
What I need is for someone to SPELL out exactly what parts I will need to do
the switch, How to do it, and The special tools I will need.
Chris Behier has already sent out a parts list. Your local Earl's
dealer can provide a mini-catalog with a complete list of adapters in case you
want to try a different combination of parts (see below for one reason to do
so).
Here's some tips from someone who's done this already.
Do both front and rear at the same time. Doing the fronts but leaving the
stock rear line will result in too much hysteresis -- the rears will be about
a second behind the fronts in both application and release. Trust me, you do
not want to know what this feels like.
The only special tools needed are flare wrenches. DO NOT attempt to wrench on
brake fittings without them, or you WILL round off the nuts and adapters!
While the fittings around the hoses are English, get both English and metric
sets, as you will eventually need both kinds if you do any master cylinder
work.
The factory really wails on those hard line fittings, and you may have some
trouble breaking them loose. If you don't have the strength of a scared ape,
find someone who does.
The crush washers MUST be 10mm -- not 3/8", which is too small. (The standard
banjo ends fit both.) However, if you get it wrong, any auto parts store
should stock these. Get twice as many as you think you'll need; they're
cheap.
Consider using banjo-to-AN adapters instead of hoses with banjo ends. Straight
AN-to-AN hoses are widely stocked at race shops; the AN-to-banjo hoses are a
little harder to find. And if you use the adapters, you won't need new crush
washers when the hose has to come off.
Be *absolutely* *sure* that the hoses are not going to rub against anything,
or kink, under any combination of suspension and steering movements. Reroute
the hose if you have to, and take the time to get it right. Crush washers are
cheap, hoses less so, and brake failures not at all.
And when you order hoses, be sure to order more than you need -- one "oops!"
and a hose is history. The braided lines are not as bulletproof as the stock
hoses.
14 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%[email protected]
Chuck writes:
>The only special tools needed are flare wrenches.
>
>The factory really wails on those hard line fittings, and you may have
>some trouble breaking them loose. If you don't have the strength of a
>scared ape, find someone who does.
Chuck isn't kidding. I broke a New K-tools 7/16" flare wrench when dealing
the front fittings on the Capri. It wasn't a pleasant experience. I replaced
it with a more beefy Craftsman wrench. The larger K-tools flare wrenches
haven't given me any trouble.
I am not certain, but I don't believe anyone mentioned in this most recent
thread that rear brake line routing is different on the older cars which did
not have dual exhausts. They route the brake line where the passenger side
muffler would be. The hardware used is also different - there is no banjo
fitting. The fasteners on the Capri in this area were very rusted and very
difficult to remove (it made the front seem easy).
14 Apr 1994
Dick Nyquist
Bill
I thought bump steer was what happened when 4 IT cars went for the apex at
once.
14 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chris Herzog)
> ... The recent MM&FF had an article
> about a maximum motorsports kit to replace the rubber flex lines on a stock
> car with braided lines. They want $110 for the hardware to do this.
>
> I've seen these on the shelf at a nearby Mustang emporium. They have
> stock-type fittings at either end with braided hose between. The price
> seems a bit steep but they will bolt on just like the stock ones.
If I'm correct, the Maximum Motorsports kit is all _3_ lines (including the
rear)
> I have two ways to go about this. I can slap down $110 to maximum
> motorsports, or, with a LOT of guidance from the brake gurus here, I think
> I could get all the parts from Earl's for quite a bit less.
>
> Don't kid yourself! It's not "quite a bit" less by the time you get the
> myriad adapters and such.
Chuck is right, the cost of the adaptors may really bust your Kahuna's by
the time you are done. The fronts are pretty straight forward because you can
already get pre-assembled lines with an appropriate banjo on one end pretty
cheap (you can order the stuff for the fronts right from Pegasus with their
preassembled lines and adaptors for not too much cash). If you go that route:
18" straight #3 to 3/8 (aka 10mm) banjo $17.75
#3 to inverted flare female $ 4.49
All in all, the fronts are pretty cheap with about $44.48 expended. Check the
the length, I just sort of made up 18".
The big problem is the rear. It is a hose with a crimped on T fitting with an
integral mounting bracket. I ended up changing the entire rear end on my AS
car to AN fittings anyway but trying to come up with a good way to mount the
rear T fitting in the stock config is a real trick (especially in a solid
manner so there is NO movement of any solid lines). Bulkhead T's in small AN
sizes are NOT cheap!!
The rear end is one place you won't save any money and might just as well
end up blowing the remaining $50 (when compared to the Maximum Motorsports kit).
My feeling is that if the MM kit replaces the _stock" rear axle hose, it's a
pretty good deal (coming from a guy that has to have spent $500 in various
Earl's fittings and hoses in the last 2 months; I still can hardly sit down!)
> Consider using banjo-to-AN adapters instead of hoses with banjo ends.
> Straight AN-to-AN hoses are widely stocked at race shops; the
> AN-to-banjo hoses are a little harder to find. And if you use the
> adapters, you won't need new crush washers when the hose has to come
> off.
Good advice, the banjo to #3's are only about $7 or $8 and they save you the
hassle of goofing around with the crush washers if you just want to pull the
calipers off to do something else.
14 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
If I'm correct, the Maximum Motorsports kit is all _3_ lines (including the
rear)
I seem to recall that it is.
The big problem is the rear. It is a hose with a crimped on T fitting with an
integral mounting bracket. I ended up changing the entire rear end on my AS
car to AN fittings anyway but trying to come up with a good way to mount the
rear T fitting in the stock config is a real trick (especially in a solid
manner so there is NO movement of any solid lines). Bulkhead T's in small AN
sizes are NOT cheap!!
What Skod came up with is the following. Detach the stock hard lines
and remove the bracket. Drill the existing tee out of the bracket, and
while you're at it open up the slot in the bracket til it will accept an
appropriately sized bolt.
Then the parts you need are a tee fitting with 3 inverted flares
(supposedly for a GM application), an AN-3 bulkhead fitting, and a crush
washer. Bolt the tee to the bracket and slam the hard lines in, and
you're in business. I'd post the part numbers but I'm too lazy to look
'em up.
The rear end is one place you won't save any money and might just as well
end up blowing the remaining $50 (when compared to the Maximum Motorsports kit).
I really don't think it's that big an expense.
14 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
mustangs%[email protected]
> Chris, Do you (or anyone else on the list) know if the parts below will work
> for an 85 Mustang with the itsy bitsy teeny tiny stock front disk brakes and
> the smaller (7.5" vs 8.8") stock rear axle as well?
The front brake hardware will have to be different. The fittings on the
caliper aren't the same. The rears may well be the same; Brian mentioned that
there were changes somehwere along the line, but since the '85's had two
mufflers they may well have the "modern" rear brake line set up.
Even though I know you're planning to upgrade the rears to discs, I really
think you should re-consider putting the money into the front brakes instead.
Getting some junkyard spindles, take-off front struts, and some calipers from
APC will be cheaper than the rear disc upgrade and make more of a difference.
The rear discs will improve feel in general, but the beafier fronts will
contribute more to your braking ability. Hell, I'll give you a hardly-used
'92 master cylinder if you need it.
14 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 14, Dan Howley wrote:
> Chris, Do you (or anyone else on the list) know if the parts below will work
> for an 85 Mustang with the itsy bitsy teeny tiny stock front disk brakes and
> the smaller (7.5" vs 8.8") stock rear axle as well?
No, they won't. The fittings on the front calipers for the '79-85 cars are
pretty unique. They are inline, and are 10mmx1 with a 45deg male flare located
way, way down in the caliper- sort of a ISO/BSP hybrid. There's no machined
flat for a crush washer to seal on. With some machining work, you could
probably make it work with a banjo, or adapt it somehow. But it's much, *much*
easier to just upgrade to the '87-up parts, which use a real 10mm banjo
fitting. Shoot, I even have a spare set of 0-mile '93 takeoff spindles I'll
sell you for what I paid for them...
One other concern is the flare nut on the chassis end for the front lines. I
seem to recall those being 3/8-24 for the '86 and earlier cars, instead of the
7/16-24 used on the later cars, which means that you might need a different
adapter (you'd need a pair of Earl's #989543, instead of the #989549 from the
previous parts list). But measure to make sure! My memory is notoriously poor
on the original setup of my car, and I slept since then.
The parts list Chris posted is the cheapest way to go, and all the numbers are
correct. You can definitely use those parts as-is for any '87-up car. One
minor issue that has come up, though, concerns the rear axle hop. Some folks
have reported that they had to shorten the banjo bolt at the chassis end by
about 1/8", since the Earl's banjo is thinner than the stock Ford part. Keep
that in mind.
Chuck's point about using banjo adapters and straight 3AN-3AN hoses definitely
applies for a pure track car, where lines suffer extreme abuse and are
expected to be replaced often. Each time you disconnect a banjo fitting, you
must replace the crush washers that provide the seal. They will seal exactly
once (which is why you _really_ want to keep spares on hand). The AN flare
plumbing, on the other hand, will seal well for tens or even hundreds of
cycles.
So if your intended use includes extensive track work, which would have you
removing the calipers for maintenance (rebuilds and the like) fairly often,
you might consider spending the extra few shekels and doing it that way. If
anybody wants the full parts list for doing it that way, they should let me
know, and I'll send it out privately. The inexpensive list that Chris posted
is fine for occasional track work, and if you just want a better pedal feel
for your canyon bomber.
Chris Herzog wrote:
> The big problem is the rear. It is a hose with a crimped on T fitting
> with an integral mounting bracket. I ended up changing the entire
> rear end on my AS car to AN fittings anyway but trying to come up with
> a good way to mount the rear T fitting in the stock config is a real
> trick (especially in a solid manner so there is NO movement of any
> solid lines). Bulkhead T's in small AN sizes are NOT cheap!!
>
> The rear end is one place you won't save any money and might just as
> well end up blowing the remaining $50 (when compared to the Maximum
> Motorsports kit).
The parts list that Chris posted includes a tee with SAE ports that an AN
adapter is screwed into. You salvage the bracket from the original assembly,
bolt the new tee to it, and you're in business without having to cut or flare
lines.
I have gone the same route as you and done all AN plumbing, including that
tee, and it is expensive to do it that way (the AN bulkhead tee is nearly
$30!). But it's certainly not strictly _necessary_, unless you're an
unrepentant trackie who's in there screwing with the stuff all the time. Like
me.
I don't like the Maximum Motorsports line for this, since their tee appeared
to be swaged directly onto the flex line. I'd rather be able to disconnect the
flex line at the axle, leaving it attached to the tub, to remove the axle for
service. You can't drop the axle with theirs without breaking down the banjo
fitting. But it'll work perfectly well for the casual trackie, and provide the
desired pedal improvement.
Sorry it took me so long to get back on this. Why is it that we only get
started on subjects this I like when I'm too busy at work on projects, and at
home prepping my car for an event?
Doesn't seem fair, somehow. But it is spring everywhere, and track season is
well and duly upon us. Hallelujah...
I'll see all you Bay Area types who are making the trek to Thunderhill this
weekend up at the track. I'm pulling out a bit early tomorrow to get up there
to help get things set up for the event (since I seem to have fallen into
being one of the organizers...), so I will be off the air tomorrow. Any
further interesting braking stuff I'll have to attack when I get back.
And for those of you out here who aren't running, and haven't decided to just
come up and hang out to see what this silly sport is all about, all I can say
is "why not?". Nothing like the smell of hot brakes and race gas, and the
bellow of a partially-muffled 427 Cobra at wide-open-throttle on a hot
summer's day...
15 Apr 1994
Robert King
fordnatics
[ I sent this out earlier this week to the list, but it never arrived via
the list. Either it never made it to the list server, or my mail feed dropped
it coming back. If the latter is true and you've seen this, my apologies.]
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...
15 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%[email protected]
Andre wisely writes concerning Dan's brake upgrade plan for his '85:
>Even though I know you're planning to upgrade the rears to discs, I
>really think you should re-consider putting the money into the front
>brakes instead. Getting some junkyard spindles, take-off front struts,
>and some calipers from APC will be cheaper than the rear disc upgrade
>and make more of a difference.
I agree that those tiny '85 front brakes should be done before the rear disk
conversion. However, you won't need to scrap your old struts. They will work
fine with the new spindles if you use spacers. The newer and larger front
rotors with the LSC calipers are a nice combo and you'll have a larger
selection of off the shelf pads.
One important thing Andre did not mention is that the stock '85 wheels
probably won't fit over the larger front brakes.
15 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Tom Stangler)
Brian Kelley banged out on his keyboard.....
* Andre wisely writes concerning Dan's brake upgrade plan for his '85:
*
* >Even though I know you're planning to upgrade the rears to discs, I
* >really think you should re-consider putting the money into the front
* >brakes instead. Getting some junkyard spindles, take-off front struts,
* >and some calipers from APC will be cheaper than the rear disc upgrade
* >and make more of a difference.
*
* I agree that those tiny '85 front brakes should be done before the
* rear disk conversion. However, you won't need to scrap your old
* struts. They will work fine with the new spindles if you use
* spacers. The newer and larger front rotors with the LSC calipers are a
* nice combo and you'll have a larger selection of off the shelf pads.
I have a sketch of the spacers to adapt the 86/10" struts to the 87/11"
spindle. If anyone needs it, just email.
BTW....the 93 mustang.net video is still available.
15 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Jay Fletcher)
[email protected] (mustangs)
Brian Kelley wrote:
> One important thing Andre did not mention is that the stock '85 wheels
> probably won't fit over the larger front brakes.
Just to clarify. There was a change in the telephone dial wheels in 87
specifically to accomodate the larger front brakes. These newer wheels
have an E7SC casting number.
I have a set of these with almost new Gatorbacks if anyone would like
to make me an offer.
18 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 17, Sean Pollack wrote:
> I once tried to find a mustang in a junk yard in the bay area and
> could only find one mustang with everything gone except the steering
> wheel, which was broken.
>
> Does anyone know where I can find 1987-1994 used parts?
Three places you can go, both in Milpitas. The best place is 5.0 Effects,
(408)946-6193, which is primarily a Mustang tuning shop. But the owner, Kurt
Wade, is a friend of mine, and has a ready supply of _good_ used parts
available. When I need a used part that I intend to put on my car, I'll go to
him first. He has a good network of suppliers for parts, and can pick and
choose (very much the way that Rick Menard does back East). For those of you
not in the Bay Area, I don't think that he ships out of region- but it
certainly wouldn't hurt to call and _ask_, no?
The second two places are next door to each other, and are wrecking yards.
Caveat emptor, here, but they do have Mustangs. They are P and C Auto Wreckers
(408)262-5740, who part out their own cars and keep a computer listing of what
they have for parts (so they can tell you over the phone if they have what you
need), and the U-Pull-It next door, which I think P and C actually _owns_.
That yard gets all the real basket cases that aren't worth P and C's time to
part out. Take your hip boots, and your tools, and make damned sure your
tetanus inoculation is up to date. It's a good cheap place to get _really_
dead brake rotors to turn into hubs, though... P and C's prices are a little
high, since you have to pay for their parting labor and for that spiffy
computer inventory listing of theirs.
Outside the immediate area, but still interesting, are the mailorder places.
Menard's has already been mentioned, up in Chester, NH (603)887-4049. He will
ship parts UPS, and has an extensive inventory. I did a lot of business with
him when I lived back East, and he's another straight shooter like Kurt Wade.
And guys like that are rare as hell, and deserve our support. There's also
Ford Auto Recyclers in Rancho Cordove, CA (800)720-2929. I have only bought
one or two things from them, but they seem to have decently deep stock on
parts. And lastly, there's Mathis Motorsports Salvage in Georgia, (706)694-
3825. I haven't personally done any business there, but they have a good rep
with some trustworthy friends of mine who have. These last three will all ship
UPS.
Two other numbers that you should also always keep in mind are companies that
specialize in new-car takeoffs, overstocks of factory parts, and esoteric
police/factory race parts. Those two would be Mustang Dynamics, which is Jim
Dingell's company that specializes in police-special parts (and also Cobra R
surplus bits), in Virginia at (703)818-9892. Jim's another straight shooter,
and has helped me track down a couple of very bizarre bits. And lastly,
there's the great house for obtaining Ford overstock, take-offs from special
model conversions, and just general Neat Stuff. Diversified Products Marketing
in Michigan at (313)459-0130. I've done a lot of business with these last two,
and they are also run by people who are very much Mustang enthusiasts, and
good folks to know. Highly recommended.
Micro-administrivia: Conspicuously absent from this list are any folks I think
are bums, and there are more than a few. I've grudgingly learned a little bit
about life over the last few years, and I'll no longer broadcast that kind of
stuff, since folks seem to love to print out articles from this private list
(despite the fact that that is strictly outside the charter of the list!) and
present them to the folks thus maligned, which leads to me getting phone calls
of an unpleasant nature. So I'll just not talk about 'em. Thus, you can rest
assured that the people I've mentioned here are known to be good to do
business with.
I'm sure that there are literally hundreds of others around the country. But
if you can't get what you want from the folks on this list, you'll have one
tough row to hoe.
Hope this helps, even with those of you who aren't right here in the Bay
Area...
19 Apr 1994
"Brian St. Denis"
[email protected]
I made a ram air kit for my 1992 notchback last week before the event at TWS.
It was made from heater ducting. The scoop piece was a 6" diameter to 4"
diameter converter connected to a 4" to a 3" converter. Then, I used 3" heater
ducting to run to the 3" inlet on my intake silencer that I had to put back
on. This forms a mostly air tight pathway from scoop to intake manifold. I
bolted the scoop to the front facia under the bumper with a single nut and
bolt (with washers). I really cranked down on the tightness and it held for
the whole trip down, the event (140 mph), and back. Since it was 6" in
diameter, it extended that far below the bumper and would scrape on the ground
when I hit large bumps in our fine Texas roads.
Also, for this event, I set my timing to 15 degrees. It had been at 12.5
degrees of initial advance. My terminal speed at the end of the front
straight, when doing the road course, was almost 130 mph. I also achieved
that speed on my first or second trip down the straight. My previous best
terminal speed was about 125. I am not sure if the advanced timing or the ram
air ducting was the biggest contributor but 5 mph is pretty major.
For this summer's events, I switched to Mobil 1 (10w30) synthetic motor oil. I
put in exactly 5 quarts. Right away, my Check Oil light has been coming on.
It flickers, goes out, comes on steady, etc. Usually, when I rev the motor,
it goes out, but not always. Pretty much the whole trip down, the light would
flicker on and off. But, the dipstick continues to register over Full. I am
not sure what is causing this condition. My oil pressure gauge, which most of
us know is not too accurate, shows it nomal position. I'm not exactly sure
what I should do next to diagnose this problem.
My buddy, who followed me in the parade laps that I mentioned earlier, said he
could see some smoke coming out of the left side tail pipe when I would really
get on the throttle. I haven't seen any and the video camera didn't pick any
up, but I trust him. I wonder if this could be realted to the Check Oil light
and if this is a serious condition.
Back to the ram air... this thing scooped up so much dirt and crap it was
amazing. When I removed it the following day, there wasn't only dirt in the
filter, but in the hose leading up to the intake silencer. There is still
sand and dirt in the silencer that I can't seem to shake out. The filter was
full of bugs and seeds and everything else. After shaking the big stuff out,
I lightly tapped it on the ground. There was almost enough dirt that came out
to pot a small plant. If you make a ram air kit, plan on spending quite a bit
of time cleaning air filters.
Any advice on the Check Oil light or the tiny amount of smoke coming out
of the tail pipe would be appreciated.
19 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
While we're on the subject, what is the stock ratio?
Nominally 1.6:1. Some sources list it as 1.59:1.
For reference, stock lift on roller cam 5.0s is spec'd at 0.444".
Increasing the ratio to 1.7:1 (Cobra rockers) yields 0.472" lift. A
1.72 ratio results in 0.477" lift. We're talking about a subtle
difference at best.
19 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 19, Sean Pollack wrote:
> I know for some reason my 87 LX 5.0 Hatch is lighter than any other
> mustang.
Ahh, yes. The old '87 spec book "optimism".
Back when the Earth was still cooling, and Mustangs were still vaguely
competitive in SCCA Showroom Stock racing, a most amazing thing happened. The
'87 Mustang spec book listed the curb weight for the LX hatch as 2782lb, and
the GT hatch as 3080lb. The LX was suddenly, magically spec'd to weigh 125lb
less than the '86 hatch (2907lb), and even 67lb less than the '86 notchback
(2849lb). It was barely more than the 2724lb spec'd for the 4-cylinder
notchback.
Now, the SCCA rules state that you have to run the car at at least the minimum
curb weight from the shop manuals, so this gave a whole bunch of SCCA racers a
good opportunity to go get an '87 LX and rip 125lb out of it someplace that it
wouldn't show too much. And 125lb is a nontrivial amount of weight to lose,
and when taken with the newer (older) heads and less restrictive intake
manifold, it made the '87 LX the most competitive late Mustang there was by a
pretty wide margin.
In the spec book for the '88s, they corrected the error, and moved the weights
back up to a more realistic 2815/3080. That increase may seem small, but it
was enough to take a little more life out of the tires, and make the Mustang a
little less competitive against its GM counterparts. So after a brief moment
in the sun, the Mustang once again assumed its place as a car that was run
only by the most addicted Ford fanatics, and the Camaros began winning
everything in SSGT again. By 1990, even the most dedicated of the Ford runners
at the national level had pretty much all switched to Camaros, even the Ford
stalwarts like John Wall of Merrimack Lincoln Mercury had given up. But it
was nice while it lasted.
For a brief moment or two, the '87 LX hatch was the weapon of choice in SCCA
SSGT for Ford lovers. No one seemed to take much notice that the numbers on
the page, and the weights of the cars as delivered, were different by 125lb.
The book said it, so it must have been true...
It is lost to the ages whether that was simply a typo, or an effort by Ford to
make the cars have a more competitive weight target for racing. You make the
call.
20 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Well, as everybody knows, we all went out to play in traffic at Thunderhill
this past weekend. Had a good time, too, except maybe for Chucko, whose spun
rod bearing has him bicycle-bound for the nonce.
Anyway, as usual, I was testing a whole potload of changes. I had popped on a
set of MAC 1 5/8" headers, because they were cheap, and a new catalyst H-pipe
from Ford, because it was free (and in fact required, if I intended to keep my
car registered in California!). Other than that, the powertrain remained as
pitifully stock as ever.
In the braking department, I had changed over to the SVO/Continental rear
calipers on 11x1.1" rotors, and still had my trusty Lincoln calipers on the
same size rotors up front. For pads I decided to test out the Hawk Carbotic
race pads up front, and the unpretentious (and cheap!) Onadime Carbomet Plus
pads on the rear. This last was primarily because tax-time cash flow dictated
that the $40 I spent for them was *much* more survivable than shelling out
$150 for some custom carbon-kevlars. I wanted to see how they would hold up
under the pounding, in any case.
In the suspension department, there was essentially nothing that was
_unchanged_ from the A-pillars aft. The rear axle I had reworked with the Greg
Moser 9" big-bearing axle conversion kit, that grafts the much beefier axles,
bearings, and housing ends from the 9" on the stock 8.8" housing. I had also
changed from my previous 3.27s to 3.55s while the axle was apart. I had pulled
out my Police/Taxi control arms and installed the Griggs Racing torque arm,
adjustable lower control arms, and race-duty Panhard rod setup. I had also
installed Griggs' 350-450lb progressive rear springs to go along with the
torque arm conversion. And the track at the front was widened by 2", and the
rear by 2.5", partially as a result of the differing wheel offset and width,
and partially by the axle work at the rear.
And last but not least, I had finally seen the light and upgraded my wheels
and tires to 5-lug, and had managed to scam some 255-50/16 Bridgestone
RE71RAZs, shaved to 5/32", on 16"x8.5" ACT-LS wheels. Yes, they fit on an '86,
after the gentle application of a baseball bat to the flares, and a ball-pein
hammer to radius the lips inside the rear wells away from the sidewalls. You
need to just roll the lip on the rear, and stretch the fronts outboard perhaps
1/4" as well as rolling it. The wheels were effectively 25mm offset, BTW.
So much for only making one change at a time, eh? This left me with a car with
no rubber bushings in the rear suspension at all, and only 2 thin-shell
urethanes (in the lower control arms). All other suspension joints are Teflon-
lined spherical bearings. And you know what? The ride is very nice, though
firm. There is very little of the harsh clatter I expected. The only truly
harsh sounds that telegraph themselves through the tub are the sounds of
driveline lash, as the ring and pinion take up the play from drive to coast on
throttle changes. I _like_ that sound, but I'm well known as a nutcase. Your
wives and girlfriends might just take exception to it. Me, I'll be doing the
same thing up front before the next outing. Get those dadgum urethane bushing
outta there, I want spherical bearings!
At the time of the installation of the torque arm and Panhard, I made some
pretty sizable changes to the design to make it suit me, rather than merely
using it as sold. I changed the pickup point at the nose of the arm from being
a single 3/8" bolt in single shear with big urethane donut snubbers, to being
a pair of Heim joints mounted in double shear as a drop link. Some torque-arm
owners complain of noisy operation as the nose of the arm plunges fore and aft
due to control arm deflection and tries to shear the single bolt. That struck
me as being a bit too spooky for my tastes, so I overdid it in my usual way. I
did the same sort of thing with the Panhard installation, welding the axle
pickup in place rather than bolting it, and gussetting the bejeezus out of
everything that looked as if it might be inclined to flex. It didn't.
I also reworked the rear plate on the torque arm (that captures 3 of the rear
cover bolts and acts as the rear mounting point) to make it removable without
dropping the arm, for maintenance purposes. This also gave me another
adjustment for pinion angle setting. The pinion angle is critical for getting
decent life out of the rear U-joint, and is very difficult to set up properly
with the torque arm. And one degree of error in the setup will telegraph some
_very_ unpleasant noises through all those spherical bearings right into the
tub, so it's worthwhile to get it right!
One amusing sidelight to the weekend was that two of the guys from Griggs
Racing came up with their prototype car to set up a vendor display and try and
sell their stuff. They spent a fair amount of time crawling all over the car
looking at the tweeks I'd made, and I suspect that one or two of them may end
up being offered as options on the parts in the future.
So what happened? The first session out, I rapidly became convinced that
aliens had abducted my car and replaced it with a Dodge Dart. Everything I
knew about the setup needed to make the car work was utterly, totally wrong,
and the car was nearly undriveable. Saturday was spent chasing the setup. And
after changing tire pressures by about 8 psi, dampers by about 50% (stiffer in
the rear, softer in the front), dialing in all the negative camber I could
without the use of a die grinder, and learning how to drive the car all over
again, I got some good results- which is to say that I took about 4 seconds
off my lap times. It was well worth it.
The torque arm works. It just flat works. The rear end hooks up, and
my poor old motor does not make enough oof to break those great
...
braking and corner entry, and wheelspin would kill my exit. Now, I was
able to brake and turn in, and then exit with the best of them.
However, the car's problem is now understeer at the apex in the low-to-mid-
speed corners, as expected. You flat have to carry a very light throttle at
the apex to control the push, and then when the car is aimed more or less
where you want it, you can open the throttle and the car leaps ahead in that
direction. It's that learning experience that took up the rest of the weekend.
The solution to that is to go with more rear bar, less front bar, and yet more
negative camber (although I'll end up trading off negative camber against rear
roll stiffness to some extent). I picked up a minor case of blisters on the
outer shoulders of the front tires on Saturday, before regaining some
semblance of control of the right foot. -2.5deg camber isn't enough...
There is no question that one great advantage of this rear suspension setup
lies in the complete lack of bind. When I was setting it up, with the car on
jackstands in the garage, I had the springs out. With the jack under the
center section, I could move the axle through its entire range in roll with
one finger. No bind at all. And that suppleness makes its presence felt over
bumps and pavement ripples. There are ripples in the off camber Turn 3 area
that made the stock 4-link extremely nervous, under power, that you can't even
feel with the torque arm setup. I'm certain that that suppleness was worth one
second of my overall improvement.
I also got rave reviews from the cornerworkers, as it appears that my car is
picking up its inside front wheel by as much as a reported 6 inches (!) at the
apex of the Cyclone. The roll couple, she needs a bit of work...
Anyway, the 3.55s were a huge win, and are extremely streetable. With my 225-
50/16 street tires, 80mph cruise comes out to be 2600rpm in fifth. With the
very large (26.0" dia) 255s on the track, I was actually getting into 5th on
the front straight when I wanted to be kind to the motor. By my calculations I
was arriving a the braking zone for 1 at right about 122mph (5600rpm in 4th),
which isn't too shabby, given that the car's torque-versus-drag battle ends at
134.5, and not a drop more... That is up almost 7mph from my previous best top
speed, and shows that I'm getting out of Turn 9 better, as well as the car's
improved acceleration from the gearing. It still takes a long time to get up
that straight, though.
The brake pads worked out amazingly well. In front, the Hawks showed only
about .060 wear at the end of the weekend, and the rotors showed about .040
wear! This is in stark contrast to the carbon-kevlars, which would have shown
about .250 wear on the pads, and perhaps .010 on the rotors. The Hawks appear
to be nearly immortal at moderate-braking tracks, and exhibited decent feel.
However, they also exhibited green fade that would _stop a clock_, and nearly
had me off entering Turn 8 when it happened. Not my idea of a good time.
I didn't take any rotor or hat temps, since Thunderhill is so easy on brakes.
Caliper temps stayed comfortably below 290degF, as well. I'll run these pads
again at Laguna, and see just how well they stand up to _serious_ abuse. I
suspect that I'll destroy a set of rotors over the course of that 2-day event.
These pads are definitely the most unkind to rotors I've ever run, but they
work well.
On the rears, the Carbomets did exceptionally well for a pedestrian street
pad, and showed only about .080 wear, and negligible rotor wear. They have
elevated themselves about 3 notches in my book as street pads, and I'll keep
using them at the rear on the track. With the Hawks in front and these in the
rear, the brake bias ended up sitting right in the middle of the range of the
prop valve, which is nearly ideal.
At the onset of rear lockup, I experienced a fair amount of axle hop, which is
a direct function of not having enough rebound damping at the rear, and
probably still having the rear tire pressures wrong. And probably having the
rear ride height off by .250" or so. Oh, well, there's always the next event
to get 'em dialed in...
Oh, yeah. And while all this tuning and tweaking was going on, I also got to
meet and ride along with a whole bunch of great folks, play announcer and
steward, flag a few sessions at start/finish, and help sweep the track about 3
or 4 times. I even teched a car, if I remember right. Is there any wonder why
I think these events are so much _fun_? Never a dull moment. It was great to
meet the two list members who came out to play for the first time. It's
always fun to attach a face to the name. I never forget a face. I just never
remember a *name*... Karl Brandt I remember, since he's now mailed me, but I
don't remember the other gent. Hey, who were you, anyway? I'm hopeless.
Next outing will be either Willow Springs in May, or Sears Point in June for
our Mini Nats. Or I may just sneak out for a day, load up the car, and go to
Sears for open testing. I still have a list as long as my arm of tweeks to
test, and it's hard to do them all justice in the more social atmosphere of a
club event.
Hmm. Do I feel a "track cough" coming on? Ooops, my _boss_ is on the list...
20 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
I am in the process of adapting a set of SN-95/Cobra R brakes for my non-AS
Mustang, and I've uncovered a few data points that are applicable for the AS
driver who want to use them as well, so I thought I'd share them here.
The '93 Cobra R brakes are based on the SN-95 (regular '94 Mustang) spindle
and hub assembly, with what are essentially Corvette calipers and rotors
mounted up. The calipers are the PBR 2-piston sliders, with a pair of 38mm
pistons, for a total of 2268mm2 piston area. That's roughly equivalent to a
single 53.6mm (2.1") piston, which oddly enough is exactly what I get from my
Lincoln rear calipers, but that's another story. '94-up Mustang Cobra and
Cobra R calipers will have the word "COBRA" cast in on the outer pad support
face (visible through the wheel spokes), but the '93 parts are visually
indistinguishable from the Corvette parts.
The rotors are 330mm (13") diameter by 28mm (1.1") thick. The rotor offset
(the offset from the inner hub mounting flange on the hat section of the rotor
to the outer working face of the rotor) is 36.7mm, which is very shallow as
such things go. The reasons for that I'll get into below. The Ford variant of
the PBR caliper bolts directly up to the SN-95 spindle with no adapter plate
or other kludges required, as the SN-95 Mustang production brakes feature a
66mm single piston caliper (manufactured by Bendix) that shares mounting
specs. The Corvette version of these calipers are apparently available for
about $190 each through either Stainless Steel Brakes or your local Chevy
dealer.
The calipers are very much an improvement on the sliding caliper theme. They
feature a rigid pad abutment ring that absorbs all thrust loads from the pads
under braking, and the caliper body literally does float on the pads
themselves, which eliminates to a large extent the taper wear cause by the
deflection of the caliper mount pins and subsequent caliper cocking in the Fox
brakes. The rotors are also cast by Kelsey-Hayes, and benefit from all the
development that has been put into the large GM brakes. Rotor life should be
improved by a large factor by the quality of the casting alone.
The problems that have been reported in using the 13" rotor setup with 16"
wheels are very real. In order to make this work, I have had to reduce the
overall rotor OD to 12.25", and slot the caliper mounting ears on the spindle
.375" in towards the spindle centerline to relocate the caliper. The
interference problem exists between the caliper body and the bead clearance
taper on cast wheels. There are some BBS wheels (for a large offset 300zx
application) that have a very shallow taper that are reported to fit over the
caliper without modification, but I don't have the full specifications for
those. Spacing the wheels out on the spindle gains useful amount of clearance,
though, as the taper moves outboard as well.
The master cylinder recommended by Ford is the 1" bore '93 Cobra unit, with
the power booster from the same car. This should yield a nice high, firm pedal
with the small caliper piston area.
I spoke with Frank Eubel of the comp board last week, and he informed me that
cutting down the rotor OD and modifying the spindle to get the brakes to fit
under the required 16" wheels would not be legal, of course. Since my car's
never going to be AS legal, that doesn't bother me (I love having no rules to
have to bend!), but I would suggest a sizable lobbying effort to get the board
to change their minds. The reason that this is worthwhile has more to do with
the spindle itself than the capability of the brakes, even though they are
markedly better than any variant of the normal Fox brakes.
The spindle and hub is where the real win is in this conversion. The stock
'87-up Fox 3 spindle features a tapered snout with a miniscule outer wheel
bearing. The load rating of this bearing is a measly 5850lbf, but what's more
important is that the bore is only .866". This small inner bore leads to a
very flexible assembly under race conditions, which results in shorter bearing
life. Additionally, this flex leads to major problems with pad knockback, and
to a very short spindle life before fretting wear destroys the fit between the
outer bearing cone and the spindle snout. This causes the process of setting
the bearing preload to be a major pain in the ass.
The SN-95 uses a hub assembly that is very closely related to the hub used on
the Thunderbird Super Coupe. The hub itself is a thinwall steel forging, and
the bearings are a pair of identical double row ball bearings (DB-40)
separated by a precision machined spacer. The inner bore on these bearings is
35mm (1.377"), and this results in a large, cylindrical spindle snout that is
easily an order of magnitude stiffer. The bearings themselves are rated at
8400lbf, which is a nontrivial improvement.
The inner bearing is sealed, so there is no separate grease retainer. The
outer is not sealed, and there is a more-or-less normal dust cap, but the
assembly is considered permanently lubricated. The hub is serviced as a unit,
and the bearings and spacer are a precision fit to establish the bearing
preloads. The assembly is located on the spindle by a 36mm self-locking
composite nut and Belleville spring washer that is torqued to 250ft-lb. The
bearing inner races should not move with respect to the spindle snout in use,
which eliminates fretting wear as a problem.
In short, the spindle snout and hub assembly
...
The problems that have been reported in using the 13" rotor setup with
> 16" wheels are very real. In order to make this work, I have had to
> reduce the overall rotor OD to 12.25", and slot the caliper mounting
> ears on the spindle .375" in towards the spindle centerline to
> relocate the caliper. The interference problem exists between the
> caliper body and the bead clearance taper on cast wheels. There are
> some BBS wheels (for a large offset 300zx application) that have a
> very shallow taper that are reported to fit over the caliper without
> modification, but I don't have the full specifications for those.
> Spacing the wheels out on the spindle gains useful amount of
> clearance, though, as the taper moves outboard as well.
If this is accurate, without a special wheel, the Cobra-R is SOL in AS as far
as the GCR from the SCCA is concerned, OK?
(Sorry, I couldn't trying to maximize the abbreviations...)
My feeling is that unless the brakes are a total bolt-on, it may be a
difficult sell (but the fact that the Camaro's already use this _same_ caliper
for all practical purposes does make this look less like trying to push for
brakes options to be open). If they are a total bolt on so long as you use a
wheel with some specific characteristics, I'm not sure if there's a problem
(so long as we can figure out what those characteristics are!). If Ford comes
out with a brake kit (like it sounds like they might), pushing to get that
adopted would be a better alternative (of course this assumes this new kit
would fit 16" wheels; I'd hope it would if they realize who the immediate,
ready made market for the kit would be).
My opinion is that I'm not sure we should push too hard for cutdown rotors and
relocated calipers; we're _very_ close to achieving brake parity between the
two major AS cars and I'd hate to complicate things now just to move right
away. The rules situation has settled down into a more normal pace so I think
we have some time to see how things shake (or brake) out. If it takes a
special wheel(s) to use these brakes, so be it. I'm all for cost containment
and it would suck to need really high end wheels for rain tires, but if that's
the price for using these brakes, we might need to ante up. Anyone hear
anything more regarding the availability of a kit from Ford??
Regarding the Camaro's with the 'vette brakes, is the caliper casting exactly
the sameas the 'vette calipers? Do these brakes fit over the conventional
factory 16" wheels?
I'm not ready to start on this trip yet, but it's definitely in next seasons
plans.
Just some questions as we all get started...
20 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 20, Bob Wise wrote:
> First of all, I really appreciate you taking the time to post this
> info. Thanks!
You're welcome. I figure that it's worthwhile to try and get something
resembling accurate info out on these difficult-to-obtain parts, and try and
document _why_ they're worth the effort to obtain.
> I heard that the corvette caliper will fit, but the Cobra-R caliper
> won't fit. I called up the national office to bitch about the
> caliper-wheel problem, mostly to see about running the corvette
> caliper instead.
Well, there's a little bit of a problem there too. As I understand it, the
Corvette caliper that will fit the stock SN-95 mounting is the older version
that uses the 12.25"x.810 rotor, not the newer 13" version. But I haven't
held one in my hands yet, so I can only speculate. I need to do some more
checking on that front.
> How about machining the wheel itself? Also risky from
> a strength standpoint.
Risky, for sure. I wouldn't advise it, unless you have some very good way of
making sure that you have enough meat left on those wheels. Nothing good has
ever been said about wheel failure.
> So, where did you get the parts, and how much has it set you back?
Well, the hubs are currently available from Ford dealers as spares, part
number F4ZZ-1104-A, at $71.75 each. The spindles are scarce as hen's teeth for
the time being, and will pretty much stay that way until the run of '94 pace
car replicas and Cobras is done, since the whole output of the forging
manufacturer is basically consumed by just-in-time delivery to the production
line. However, it is possible to get sets of spindles pried out of the hands
of the assembly folks, and sent out as essentially emergency spares, as part
of the dialog program. See, if you provide the VIN of a '94 Mustang that has
been "greviously damaged" in an accident, like it hit a curb, say, and it
"needs replacements" to keep a new customer from being all mad...
In short, you need close ties to a sympathetic dealer, or you did at least a
few weeks back. These are starting to show up in the spares inventory of some
of the bigger dealers, as well. Won't be too long until they start to show up
in the used-parts pipeline. F4ZZ-3105-A, and F4ZZ-3106-A. $288.18 each. Ouch.
For the hats and rotors, I'm designing my own, strictly because I seem to get
a big kick out of it. And I like the advantages of the separate rotor-on-hat
system.
20 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chris Herzog)
[email protected],
> First of all, I really appreciate you taking the time to post this
> info. Thanks!
Same kudos from me!
> I heard that the corvette caliper will fit, but the Cobra-R caliper
> won't fit. I called up the national office to bitch about the
> caliper-wheel problem, mostly to see about running the corvette
> caliper instead. According to the SCCA national office, there are
> three wheel manufacturers that make a 16x8 that fit, and that there
> was no way the caliper allowance would be made.
Well, if the '93 Cobra-R caliper is the "same" as the vette caliper, I think
everyone will just be "backdating " to that one single year (I've got an
almost free source for 'vette calipers but no way for a casting that happens
to say "Cobra" on it (at least not as easy)). It be a shame to run a vitually
identical caliper and then get shut down on a pimpy detail like this. I mean
the let the F-bodies run _FORD_ rear ends; why not let _FORDS_ run _GM_
brakes!
When you said the Cobra caliper won't fit does that under any of the three
"magic" wheels or under _any_ wheel (I'm assuming the Cobra-R calipers fit
under those wheels??)
> Same answer for the
> rotor diameter question, too, I'm sure. "Well, you _can_ buy wheels
> that fit". Oh well. I for one am just tickled pink that they made
> the setup legal at all.
Yeah, I didn't hold my breath for that answer; like you I'm happy for what
I _think_ we've got :-/.
> One of the wheels is a BBS, which means $$$$.
Scratch that one off...
> Steeda has a wheel that
> works at $240/wheel. That is still on the expensive side, IMHO.
Of course they don't _make_ wheel, if we find out who is doing the mfg, we
might be able to work up a volume purchase (either from the mfg or maybe from
Steeda if they have an exclusive)
21 Apr 1994
"Brian St. Denis"
[email protected]
> open-track event ...
> car is showing the following wear-and-tear:
>
> Tires: Outside edges show far more wear then the insides.
This is due in a large part to the stiffness of the sidewalls. The race tires
have much stiffer sidewalls which help in every way and prevent the wear you
are talking about. If you adjust your camber to the maximum negative setting,
this will also help a little but not prevent it.
> Brakes: The pedal, which
> was pretty close to rock hard after filling the system
> with pricey Motul racing fluid, has now gotten a little
> soft.
I don't feel that Motul is that pricey. Before I found Motul, I used AP 550
brake fluid and it was twice as expensive. It also was not as good. Since
switching to Motul, I don't have to bleed my brakes as often and this actually
saves money. YMMV.
> Suspension: I now get a rubbing/creaking sound coming from somewhere
> in the rear suspension on the passenger side.
If I was a betting man, I'd put $50 on upper control arm bushings. My car has
been squeaking more and more over the last several months. Last weekend
didn't help things either. My buddy, who knew what the bushings "should" look
like, noticed that the bushings on the axle (where the upper control arms
mount) have been pushed out of their housing. I'll be upgrading to poly or
something in the next week or so.
> This hobby is obviously going to chew up tires
> and brakes
Right. Tires, brake pads, rotors, brake fluid, etc. all become consumables. I
analyzed my first season's expenses and determined that tires were the #1
cost, above entry fees, room and board, etc. That is why I went ahead and
spent the money this season for wide wheels and race tires. I mean, if you
are going to wear a tire to the ground, might as well be a super sticky one,
right?
21 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 20, Chris Herzog wrote:
> Well, if the '93 Cobra-R caliper is the "same" as the vette caliper, I
> think everyone will just be "backdating " to that one single year
> (I've got an almost free source for 'vette calipers but no way for a
> casting that happens to say "Cobra" on it (at least not as easy)). It
> be a shame to run a vitually identical caliper and then get shut down
> on a pimpy detail like this. I mean the let the F-bodies run _FORD_
> rear ends; why not let _FORDS_ run _GM_ brakes!
I think that this is a nonissue. The calipers are visually identical, and have
identical piston sizes. There may be subtle differences in the stiffening
fins, but I haven't been able to lay hands on the appropriate calipers to do a
side-by-side comparo. I highly doubt that even the most anal competitor would
protest you on such a fine point, but there again, that's one reason that I
don't run my car with a group that has rules to start with...
Frankly, I think that the Cobra Rs were built with off-the-shelf PBR Corvette
castings, and that PBR didn't have _time_ to tool up a unique Ford-specific
casting until this year. The Cobra R effort was very much a skunkworks, last-
minute affair, by sound of it. I'd run the 'Vette pieces without even giving
it a second thought.
The calipers are available from any Chevy dealer, or from Stainless Steel
Brakes (who import them directly from Australia, without going through the GM
parts chain). SSB has them for $195 each in singles, but I'm told that the
local Chevy dealer has them for significantly less. I haven't gone that route
yet, so I don't have the part numbers that they would want. Truth be told, I
have no clue how the GM part numbering scheme works...
> When you said the Cobra caliper won't fit does that under any of the
> three "magic" wheels or under _any_ wheel (I'm assuming the Cobra-R
> calipers fit under those wheels??)
None of the calipers that run on 13" rotors will fit under the non-magic
wheels, whether they're from the Cobra R or the 'Vette. The problem is just
outboard of the rotor plane. The caliper's back is sculpted to fit under the
Corvette's wheels, which I believe have a much smaller offset than the wheels
needed to keep large rubber in the Mustang's fenderwells.
This puts the inner taper on the wheel (for bead mounting clearance) farther
outboard on the 'Vette. But the taper and the outer extension of the caliper
body get together on the 26mm-offset Mustang wheels. So you need a wheel with
little or no taper. In the limit, you could build a modular wheel with outer
halfs only (with no bead mounting relief taper at all!) and assemble it
inside the tire, rather than stretching the tire onto the wheel. Someone who
has big money and wants to will will probably do just that...
I also got private email from Don Day, a Corvette campaigner from way back,
who assures me that the only differences between the stock 1988-present Vette
caliper and the 13" Z51/Z07/ZR1 caliper is the rotor and pad thickness
allowance to accomodate the width difference between the teo configurations.
And he faxed me the pages from the 'Vette shop manual that illustrates the
part differences between the two configurations, just to help make the point.
Apparently the magic GM nomenclature for the 13" brakes is "FE7". Good luck if
you go that route.
The last bit of data that I forgot the first time around is the part number
for the Mustang-specific rotor casting. This is *not* the 'Vette part, as the
offset of the hat section is different. I'm doing my own rotors, so I hadn't
bothered to research that info until now. The number published in Super Ford
was an engineering number, not an active stock number, so I'll have to make
some calls and get back later with the actual part number you could try to
_buy_.
The engineer responsible for this stuff is working very hard on the management
at Ford SVO to get a kit of all the right parts put in the catalog, so trying
to ferret out parts one-at-a-time will probably become ancient history very
soon. As soon as that SVO part number gets created, it'll get posted here,
either by me or by Brian, who'll probably hear about it first.
21 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%[email protected]
Ed Welbon writes:
>> These are obviously not actual charts, but they should give you the
>> basic idea. It should make you leery of using aluminum for anything
>> that must endure high cyclical stress, like rocker arms or connecting
>> rods -- or suspension pieces, for that matter.
I have to take this with a big grain of salt, as would anyone who has spent
any amount of time under a late model Corvette. They've had aluminum
suspensions and spindles since '84. The spindles, control arms, differential
support structure, dash support structure, rear facia and gas tank support
structure are all aluminum castings or stampings. And, Ohh, these components
are lightweight!
Not to mention that most new Ford engines have aluminum blocks.
>Not to dispute but, the Honda NSX has a bunch of aluminum pieces does it
>not?
I'll bet that it does. The Rx7 is similar. Just like a part made of any
other material, an aluminum piece must be properly engineered.
21 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Just got off the phone with my Ford brake contact, and he tells me that the
part number for the 13" rotors are F4ZZ-2C374-AD and F4ZZ-2C375-AD. They've
gone through a couple of revisions on their way from being limited-production
parts for the '93 Cobra R to being regular production pieces for the '94
Cobra...
They ought to be available now throught the Ford parts stream.
21 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
[email protected]
-> Well, there's a little bit of a problem there too. As I understand
-> it, the Corvette caliper that will fit the stock SN-95 mounting is
-> the older version that uses the 12.25"x.810 rotor, not the newer 13"
-> version. But I haven't held one in my hands yet, so I can only
The Corvette uses one of three front calipers: the early (1984 type) single
piston which we're not interested in, the twin piston for the .810x12.25
rotor, and the twin piston for the 1.1x13 rotor. There is a slight difference
in the rotor slot shape between the .810 and 1.1 calipers due to the wider,
larger OD rotor. I don't see any trouble (just eyeballing) with using the 1.1
calipers in either application, but you might not be able to clear a 1.1 rotor
with an .810 caliper.
The Corvette calipers are aluminum and float in an iron bracket, the same
general idea as an early Mustang caliper, except the bracket is separate. The
pads but up against the bracket; the caliper only squeezes, it's doesn't take
any brake torque.
The brackets are different between the standard 12.25 and optional Z51 13"
rigs - the Z51 bracket mounts the caliper out further, and slightly further
out. The inside edge of the Corvette rotor is practically on the tierod, so
the only way they could go is out. The 12.25 rotors have 1-3/8 offset hats,
the 13" rotors have 1-1/8 offset. The hat section is thin walled, and I doubt
the rotors weigh any more than conventional aluminum hat rotors, plus they're
all one piece. They have the Chevy 5-bolt pattern, but that's easily fixed,
pilot on a 2.75 spindle, and are only $85 each, brand new, from your local
Chevy dealer.
Gwatney Chevrolet in Memphis TN has *substantially* lower prices than that
skod's local dealer quoted him; they said the calipers listed for $117 each
and sold them to us for $90; the brackets were $35 each, making the complete
caliper assemblies (less pads) $125 per side, plus $85 per rotor. That's
plenty cheap.
-- Chuck
-> > How about machining the wheel itself? Also risky from
-> > a strength standpoint.
->
-> Risky, for sure. I wouldn't advise it, unless you have some very good
-> way of making sure that you have enough meat left on those wheels.
-> Nothing good has ever been said about wheel failure.
The Corvette caliper overhangs the wheel mount flange by 1/8" or so, the
Mustang one probably does too. The simplest way to get the caliper clearance
required is to use spacers and wheels with a different offset. Wheels aren't
cheap, but flat wheels are a lot easier to get than ones clearanced for the
calipers.
21 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
The other day I wrote:
> -> Well, there's a little bit of a problem there too. As I understand
> -> it, the Corvette caliper that will fit the stock SN-95 mounting is
> -> the older version that uses the 12.25"x.810 rotor, not the newer 13"
> -> version.
I chose my words badly here. What I _meant_ was "As I understand it, the
Corvette caliper that will fit under all the 16" stock wheels on the stock SN-
95 mounting is the older version that uses the 12.25"x.810 rotor, not the
newer 13" version." My apologies for posting something that first implied that
they won't work, and then implying that they _would_.
On Apr 21, Dave Williams wrote:
> The 12.25 rotors have
> 1-3/8 offset hats, the 13" rotors have 1-1/8 offset. The hat section is
> thin walled, and I doubt the rotors weigh any more than conventional
> aluminum hat rotors, plus they're all one piece. They have the Chevy
> 5-bolt pattern, but that's easily fixed, pilot on a 2.75 spindle, and
> are only $85 each, brand new, from your local Chevy dealer.
Great. But the Mustang spindles require a rotor offset of 36.7mm, or 1.445".
So the 13" GM rotors will be offset .320 outboard from where you want them, if
you try to use them. This is probably more than the caliper's slide mount will
handle for rotor-plane tolerance (I think that the allowance is barely .150),
so you're SOL with the GM rotor castings.
Hmm. Unless you space the calipers outboard .320 on the spindles, which will
probably work, unless you get tie-rod interference. I haven't measured that
clearance, but it's probably _barely_ .300. If you use a Heim rather than a
stock tie rod end, it might work... Anyway, spacing the calipers outboard will
_worsen_ the interference with the wheel taper. They were able to run the
caliper much more outboard under the Corvette's low-offset wheels, it seems,
without ramming the caliper into the taper- which is our problem.
> Gwatney Chevrolet in Memphis TN has *substantially* lower prices than
> that skod's local dealer quoted him; they said the calipers listed for
> $117 each and sold them to us for $90; the brackets were $35 each,
> making the complete caliper assemblies (less pads) $125 per side, plus
> $85 per rotor. That's plenty cheap.
Cool- thanks for posting that! Go nuts, guys...
> The Corvette caliper overhangs the wheel mount flange by 1/8" or so,
> the Mustang one probably does too. The simplest way to get the caliper
> clearance required is to use spacers and wheels with a different offset.
> Wheels aren't cheap, but flat wheels are a lot easier to get than ones
> clearanced for the calipers.
The Mustang setup has the caliper slightly inboard of the wheel mounting
flange, but that's still not enough. With the use of spacers, you _can_ move
the wheels outboard enough to make it all stack up and get the clearance, but
then you have major amounts of tire outside the bodywork. I'll be interested
in hearing how people make this work on their setups. For me, what's gonna
work will be to cut the rotors down, since my street wheels are the Motorsport
5-spokes drilled 5 on 4.5. But for my track wheels (16x8.5 ACT-LS), a 1.100"
spacer would have let me run the full 13" rotors and left .094 clearance to
the taper. Of course, I would then also have had nearly 1" of tire outside the
fender flare...
By cutting down the rotor OD, I can run those same wheels on a .500 spacer,
and the flares will stretch far enough. Just. And I gain an extra 2" of front
track, which I like.
21 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chris Herzog)
[email protected]
> > I think that this is a nonissue. The calipers are visually identical,
> > and have identical piston sizes. There may be subtle differences in
> > the stiffening fins, but I haven't been able to lay hands on the
> > appropriate calipers to do a side-by-side comparo. I highly doubt that
> > even the most anal competitor would protest you on such a fine point,
> > but there again, that's one reason that I don't run my car with a
> > group that has rules to start with...
>
> Tim White:
>
> A person was protested because he ground off the nubs on his headlights,
> claiming the tape looked better. The SOM upheld the protest. So, there
> are some incredibly anal competitors out there.
Some guys _really_ want to win...
Still sounds like going the '93 R route is within the rules but until someone
gets an _actual_ set is may still leave some doubt.
I for one, while I'm _really_ interested in this setup, will probably wait to
see how things shake out (as far as part availibility from Ford or some of the
more-racing oriented 3rd party folks). I started work on my motor when the
1994 GCR came out and not 3 weeks into the heads, they approved the GT-40
Cobra heads (arrgh |;-(). Going the R brake route will be a big expense and
I'm afraid of getting caught on the wrong side of the fence.
I'd like to start writing letters to the Comp Board, but frankly, I'm not sure
what alternative I would like push for. I'm afraid of pissing somebody off
pushing for something _right_now_ and then have what we _really_ want become
clear 3 months later.
I appreciate skod's input and willingness to dive in here, this has all been
_very_ good info; I'm real interested in how his experiment turns out.
In other areas; just got my SportsCar, they're still not recommending
relocating the battery!
22 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 21, Dave Williams wrote:
> -> Great. But the Mustang spindles require a rotor offset of 36.7mm, or
> -> 1.445". So the 13" GM rotors will be offset .320 outboard from where
>
> Hmm. 1.445" is pretty close to the 12.25x.810 standard Corvette rotor
> offset. But I'm not sure it'd be worth the trouble to go to the
> trouble, unless you just want to see the Camaro guys hopping up and down
> with righteous indignation.
Right, and that's not to mention the fact that that 12.25x.810 rotor is one
whole hell of a lot less rotor than the 13x1.15 you're _supposed_ to run...
But I suppose that being able to run .600 thick _pads_ might have some
advantages at some events...
> -> Hmm. Unless you space the calipers outboard .320 on the spindles,
> -> which will probably work, unless you get tie-rod interference. I
> -> haven't measured that clearance, but it's probably _barely_ .300. If
>
> ?Que pasa? .300 and .320 are .620, right? I haven't seen the '94
> parts though.
Your'e absolutely right- that buys you _more_ clearance, not less.
You'll stil get more interference with the taper, though.
> -> with the wheel taper. They were able to run the caliper much more
> -> outboard under the Corvette's low-offset wheels, it seems, without
>
> The Corvette factory wheels and my Center Lines aren't by any means
> low-offset. They're massively negative, and there's no way you're going
> to bolt them onto any conventional car without fouling everything from
> the A-arms to the struts.
Score 2. My mistake. The Corvette wheels have way more negative offset that
the Mustang wheels. In any case, the Corvette wheels move their bead allowance
taper way the hell outboard with respect to the plane of the rotor, whereas
the 16" Mustang wheels run _theirs_ well inboard. So in order to make the
taper clear the caliper, you have to get a wheel with a potload of offset, and
space it way out there. This moves the taper as far outboard as it is for the
Corvette.
> You lost me again. If the caliper doesn't even come up to the mounting
> flange, much less overhang it, then what's the problem? The Mustang
> wheels swoop *in* against the caliper?
Exactly. The 16" wheels have too little radial clearance, due to the axial
taper that _most_ wheels have to provide a deeper groove for the bead to drop
into while the tire's being mounted:
Bead relief
|
|____ V __|
| ___===----
| | ^
| | |
| | Caliper interferes with wheel here, radially
| |
<- outboard inboard->
There are some wheels with either less taper in this section, a greater ID, or
some combination that will clear. The 'Vetts seems to get around this problem
by locating their taper section further outboard. As you pointed out to me,
the 'Vette wheels have a greater negative offset (I was misinformed, my
knowledge of GM matters could be inscribed in pica on the head of a pin). If
that's the case, it's easy to see just _how_ they move the taper outboard.
The interference is purely radial, not axial. Those calipers have _minimum_
overhang, axially. Even if you spaced the calipers out .320 to try to use the
'Vette rotors, you'd very likely still have the axial clearance to the back
sides of the spokes.
> You want me to send you one?
Sure. Then I'll do the comparo, and let the world know for a fact what
niggling little identifiable jit there is for the anal to protest. You're on!
I'll post that within a day of getting the caliper. That would be really nice
to clear up.
22 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
On Apr 22, 6:43, Mike Ford wrote:
> BTW my personal view of tires for street use may be kind of odd. I don't plan
> to spend much on my tires when I replace them on my Mustang, and don't believe
> a special high traction tire is a good idea. I want reliable all weather
> traction, not occasional clean and dry pavement heroics. I think high traction
> tires are like ABS in the sense that the overconfidence they provide will get
> you into more trouble then it will get you out of. Plus many of the specialty
> tires have highly variable traction levels in normal street use (ever make a
> turn and find out a little gravel on the road is a heck of a lot like ball
> bearings?)
Like most anything else, choosing a good tire is a compromise. True, buying a
set of extrememly sticky track tires to use on the street doesn't make much
sense. However, that doesn't mean than buying a non-performance tire is
automatically better for a street car.
If you drive pretty sedately, ultimate stick in the corners won't really
matter to you. This doesn't mean that the dry traction capabilities of the
tire shouldn't matter at all. The same grip that allows you to corner
aggressively also generates more traction when braking. This won't matter to
you when coming up to a stopsign, but just might when that kid comes running
out from between parked cars.
The person who owned my '85 Capri before I did went the really cheap route
with tires - they put some really awful "Winston" S-rated tires on the car.
The traction on these was pathetic - the tires would squeal when making a U-
turn at low speed. These tires were rock-hard, and when I replaced them after
40,000 miles they probably still had another 40,000 miles left in them.
Braking performance stunk, even in sedate driving. When I replaced them with
some Yokohama street tires (still cheap, but not as el-cheapo as the Winstons)
I was amazed at the difference. I had assumed that all of my braking woes
were due to the tiny 10" rotors, but a lot of the blame rightfully rested on
the tires.
Take it from someone who rear-ended a Honda Civic even though I felt I was
following at a safe distance, and threshhold braked when I saw the brake
lights come on. Problem was, the threshhold of the Winstons was pretty low.
If I could have stopped about 5 feet shorter it would have just been a near
miss, and a decent tire might have given me that 5 feet.
A good street tire has to give traction in both the dry and the wet, and maybe
in some snow. You want to find a tire that gives you enough traction to be
comfortable in all these situations, that doesn't wear out too fast, and fits
within your budget. Buy the best tire that will fit within these criteria.
If you have trouble keeping your foot out of it, you and your right foot need
to have a little talk. Buying an inferior tire so that you won't get
overconfident is really approaching it from the wrong direction. What's the
point in driving a car like a Mustang if you intentionally hobble it with poor
tires? Better to buy a Toyota Tercel and save a boatload of money, both on
the purchase and on insurance.
> Besides I doubt if many people could tell the difference between 40 more Hp
on > a Mustang and just switching to lower traction tires. >-- End of excerpt
from Mike Ford
Why? Because lower-traction tires will go up in smoke more easily? skod's
oft-referred to "Joe and Mary Six-Pack" might mistake crappy tires for big
power, but I would hope that anyone who expects a car to be something more
than just basic transportation could tell the difference.
22 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
> Center Line is the cheapest source of 17" wheels I've found - I paid
>$190 each for a set of "billet" wheels with both Ford and Chevy bolt
>holes. You could probably get away with these if you used thick enough
>spacers.
Yow! I've had big problems with wheel failures on my Capri when running
spacers. Even just 1/4" spacers. The wheels were steel and the spacers were
aluminum. I'll be running Duralights this season and I won't let spacers
anywhere near them.
> The Center Line "billet" wheels, BTW, are a spun ring with a stamped
>1/2" plate center. The plate center doesn't look all that strong,
>either. They're welded together on the inside only, they have too many
>bolt holes (10) and they have 37 degree chamfers on the bolt holes.
>Center Line expects you to run your lug nuts down on bare aluminum.
>I don't care much for that idea either.
I don't like the aluminum bolt holes. Bud Jasman runs 16x12" Centerlines. I
believe his may be riveted, rather than welded, together. He had steel
inserts installed in the bolt holes.
22 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders),
There are really five competing bushing designs out there in the aftermarket.
I've looked at them all, tried a couple, and have a few opinions on them.
Closest to stock is the Police/Taxi version, which is still just a bonded
rubber bushing that distorts in shear. It is harder rubber, but it still
exhibits some deflection. It is, on the other hand, silent, since there is no
sliding friction and no radial play. Ran these for a long time, and they are
an improvement over stock, but not much.
Next up the scale are the straight urethane bushings, as well as the
variations on the theme (like the "polygraphite" bushings pushed by a couple
of vendors). I am currently running the Energy Suspension bushings, and I did
get quite a decent performance benefit. They are very good, cheap, and easy to
install. The do involve sliding friction between the urethane bushing body and
tubular steel core, so for maximum benefit they should be installed with
grease fittings and lubricted with Aqualube. This limits any binding and
controls any tendency towards squeaking. The thickness of the urethane does
provide some small amount of compliance (for isolation of high-frequency road
shock), and they are amazingly smooth. They are absolutely the best bang for
the buck there is. But they aren't immortal, and I did manage to kill a set of
them in one season. I had to try _really hard_, though...
Next up the scale are the Global West Del-a-lums, which feature a thinnish
Delrin working body that is contained in a trick, wonderfully machined
aluminum shell. This setup is pricey, but comes set up for external
lubrication (which they will need!), and also allows you to run the control
arm .375" forward to tweek out some aditional caster. On the other hand, they
do something I consider to be a bit worrisome, which is to allow the Delrin
liner to run directly on the pinch bolt that locates the control arm. The
Energy Suspension bushings use a separate steel sleeve to serve as the inner
sliding surface, which gives that surface a larger radius and lowers the unit
loading on the softer plastic. This separate sleeve also locks positively in
place, and acepts the compression loads from the bolt torque, supporting the
pickup points on the K member. This stationary core prevents any abrasive
contaminants (like a grain of sand) from cutting wear grooves in the bolt over
time, which might happen in the GLobal West design if the Delrin sleeve should
lock up in its reciever and start to pivot on the bolt itself. The bolt
should locate and clamp, but not be involved in sliding friction, IMHO.
Then there are the Herb Adams bushings, which use a very thin (.032) Thomson
Nyliner bushing that runs between two precision machined steel inner and outer
supports. This setup is also rigged for a grease fitting, and it will need it.
The very close tolerances between inner and outer shell, and the much larger
diameter of the inner shall, reduces unit loadings and supports the thin Nylon
insert very well. Its relative thinness means that this is the most rigid of
the plastic alternatives, and I'd bet that it would be very long-lived indeed,
with careful maintenance. It costs a _fortune_, though.
Last of all are spherical bearings, which are very strong, very reliable,
don't need lubrication, and are somewhat harsh. Not too harsh for me, though,
and this is the way I'm going. They are also pricey, and there aren;t many
off-the-shelf designs that use them. Yet.
In terms of bang-for-the-buck, the simple Energy Suspension bushings are very
hard to beat for the front arms, and for 6 of the 8 locations in the rear. My
next choice would be the Herb Adams versions. My concerns about running the
Delrin directly on the mounting bolt has always made me shy away fron the
Global West units, although there are many folks who like them. And for those
who feel like doing just a bit of fabrication, there are the Heims. I'm
planning on graduating straight from the Energy Suspension bushings to Heims
for the front control arms. I went straight from Police/Taxi to Heims in the
rear, and I find them to be _very_ streetable. I don't think I'll loosen my
back teeth by going to the spherical bearings up front.
But then, more than one person has called my basic sanity into question when
they hear what I consider "streetable"...
On Apr 22, Calvin Sanders wrote:
> Using spherical bearing must be done properly. One of the mistakes many
> people make is using tubular sleves to make up the gap from the stock
> bushings. This loads all of the suspension loads that in stock form
> were distributed evenly over a 3" long bolt to a small spot on the
> bolt maybe 5/8" long. This is focusing a lot of stress in a small place
> It can be properly done, but be careful and realize what is happening.
This is an excellent point. A badly designed spacer converts the good concept
of double shear into single shear plus a bending load in the bolt, which is a
guaranteed recipe for failure. To really do spherical bearings right, the
pivot bolt must be well supported, and in my case that means fabricating a new
support to maintain the true double shear arrangement.
> They are aluminum outter sleves with delrin inners. They have their good
> points and IMHO are a better choice that poly and will work with a little
> modification. I have a set that I bought and would like to sell. I paid
> about $115 for them and would sell them for about $100 or so to anyone
> wanting them.
Good! Answer me a question, then. Do they have any sort of inner sleeve to
support the Delrin, or does it run directly on the bolt? In particular, do
they expect the Delring to stand up to the compression loads from the bolt
torque deflecting the pickup points on the K ... > I also use delrin on my
rear arms in the front and a spherical at the > back of the lower arms.
The Griggs arms use a very thin urethane at the rear, and a Heim joint at the
front. This accomplishes essentially the same purpose.
A cautionary note. If you're contemplating aftermarket lower control arms,
look carefully at how their bushing designs acommodate twist along the length
of the arm. As the axle works in roll, the arms _must_ acommodate twist, or
they will bind and eventually fail. Some of the highly touted drag-race-only
"launch kits" have two rigid Nylon bushings, and will not allow the axle to
twist in roll at all, which is bad news for a street driven car.
22 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> On Apr 22, 10:52, Brian St. Denis wrote:
> > The stock gauge works from electric signals sent from a sender that senses
> > the oil pressure. What part of this system causes the gauge to be so
> > inaccurate? If it is the sender, couldn't a better sender be developed so
> > the stock gauge could be used?
>
> The problem is with the guage itself. Ford probably figures that Joe
> and Mary Sixpack will panic if they see the oil pressure needle move
> very much, so they damp it out to the point of uselessness.
Right. The problem lies in Ford's desire for the needles to go someplace and
_stay there_, to prevent worrying the non-automotive-literate public that
makes up 98% of the market for their cars. The pre-88 cars with their
thermoelectric gages used the hated, and much discussed, Instrument Voltage
Regulator to accomplish this. The newer cars with the magnetic gages use two
windings, one of which bucks the sender winding, to accomplish the same thing.
The actual senders are pretty good, all things considered. But they are easy
to replace with a sender for an accurate aftermarket gage, like the Autometer
or VDO lines. I personally prefer mechanical gages, which are immune to any
variations of voltage caused by interactions between the alternator and
regulator and the engine speed. In the case of the oil pressure gage, a
mechanical gage is also much faster to react (although there are undamped
electrical gages that are quite fast as well). I always see the needle flick
when my low-oil-pressure light attracts my attention...
If you are interested in finding out what's realy going on inside the engine,
any aftermarket gage is better than any Ford factory gage, regardless of the
year of the car. Any gage can be calibrated (with a pot of boiling water or a
bicycle tire pump and a couple of plumbing adapters), but the hideously damped
ballistics of the Ford gage movements render them pretty useless for quick-
reaction warning uses. They are literally intended to be analog idiot lights.
> > Assuming that neither of these two ideas is feasible, getting a complete
> > aftermarket gauge is the next choice. I have been informed of mechanical
> > oil pressure gauges such as the Autometer one. This type of mechanical
> > gauge has a tube that allows oil to flow up to the gauge, in the cockpit.
> > This idea doesn't sound so great. Are there aftermarket oil pressure
> > gauges that have a sender like the stock one? Or, is mechanical better
> > all the way?
I have used the mechanical gages for many years without tubing failure, but
I'm pretty careful with my tube jacket. A better solution is to use the same
3AN stainless-braid jacketed Teflon line that is used on the brakes flex
lines, with appropriate adapters. This results in a nearly bulletproof setup
for your oil pressure gage, and is highly recommended if you use big gages and
put them in an external bracket. Still, having said that, the miniature oil
pressure gage I have imbedded in my dash in the stock gage location uses the
smallbore Nylon tube for space reasons. I just ran it through some 3AN line as
_conduit_ where I passed it through the dash.
I might get a dashful of oil one day, but I'll take the risk. I also check on
the health of the tubing quite often. Your mileage may vary. The '86-era cars
(with the fake gage surrounds) are much more amenable to having real gages
imbedded in them that the later cars with the unitized gage clusters.
Mechanical temperature gages are more difficult to work with, because the fine
copper capillary tube from the sender bulb is so fragile, and is prone to
crimping (which destroys the gage). They are also always exactly the wrong
length, either 6 inches too short or 4 feet too long. They work very well,
though.
It's really your choice, whether you like electrical or mechanical gages
better. Electrical gages are limited to a 90deg needle sweep (because of the
mechanics of the magnetic D'Arsonval movement), whereas the mechanical gages
generally have a 270deg needle sweep. This lets you get better resolution in a
smaller package.
If you'd like to play with the factory senders, they are variable resistors
that are connected to ground on one side. Your gage would connect to +12 (or
perhaps some regulated voltage of your own making) on one side, and to the
single terminal at the sender on the other.
Surprisingly, the shop manuals claim that the same sender specs are used for
oil pressure and water temp regardless of whether the car has thermoelectric
or magnetic gages. The sender resistance for the oil press and water temp
senders is specified as ~75 Ohms at low pressure (cold temperature) and ~10
Ohms at high pressure (hot temperature). It's up to you to set up the pot of
water and the bicycle pump to draw the resistance curve for your own senders.
Or you can swap in the Autometer or VDO senders in the stock locations and
just salvage the wire in the harness. It needs to be noted that the water
temperature sender used for the gage is completely separate from the coolant
temperature sensor used by the EEC-IV, so you can hack on it to your heart's
content. Thanks for that, Ford!
One other point was originally brought up here by Dave Williams and Troy
Wecker that concerns post-88 2.3L Mustangs, and many other Ford products. The
pressure sender was dispensed with entirely and replaced with a 20-ohm
resistor in series with a 7-10psi switch. Now, if that doesn't give you a
stable needle, I don't know what would. Joe and Mary Sixpack'll _never_ be
worried by that one...
Luckily, on the 5.0, they still see fit to put in a real sender. So far.
Haven't seen the '94 schematics yet... It'd be sad if they backed up that nice
sexy gage with a brain-dead sender, wouldn't it?
Come to think of it, I'm not holding my breath.
22 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%[email protected]
>Which brings up a different question:
>What bushing material should be used:
>
>Herb Adams recommends Nylon lined bushings (which BTW they sell)
> - further the recommend against polyurathane since it
> a) cold flows
> b) binds, since it doesn't allow torsional movement
> c) it squeaks
Oh yeah, they'll doomsay poly bushings all day long. Of course they've never
actually *won* a race in a Mustang. They just sell the stuff.
>So what is net wisdom on these two bushings? Has anyone tried them?
>Do to the complex movement in the rear of the mustang what are the choices
>if stock suspension pick-up points are to be retained?
Bud Jasman won two C Prepared national championships running polyurethane
bushings in the front and the rear with stock front and rear control arms (no
panhard, no 3 link, no torque arm). Basically springs, bushings and shocks.
Stagnaro is the only other person to win that championship in the past 2 years
(in an early GT350) and I believe his suspension is entirely custom fabricated
(and doesn't use Herb's stuff or Del-Alums).
>Personally I suspect you'd want to see spherical bearings in the lower rear
>arms. When the body rolls - bushings that can pivot only allong one axis
>would tend to bind... Either the bushings must deflect somewhat,
>suspension pickup points must bend /flex or the inside tire must pick up
>off the ground.
You're going to have bind with any system that retains the upper control arms,
_regardless of the bushing type_. It is difficult to accept just how much
even the stock bushings bind until you jack up a Mustang with a torque arm or
3 link (as Scott recently confirmed).
I know of only one person (Hi Skod! :-) who has had problems with the polys
and only in the front. Several of us continue to drive on the lousy Detroit
roads and run track events for the past several years with no problems. I
have run roughly 45 Solo II's (250+ runs), several high speed track events and
driven about 16,000 street miles on these bushings.
I've tried an awful lot of different ways to make the Mustang handle better,
and I don't know of anything that provides as much improvement for the price.
For less than $100, you just can't beat'em.
Looks like I'll be having dinner with Hal Baer this Sunday night after
our Solo II at Flatrock racetrack :-)
23 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 22, Dave Williams wrote:
> I've run them on street cars with no trouble, but the kind of side
> loads a track car pulls concerns me. Looks like premium stud time
> no matter what.
>
> Skod's running spacers now, or at least I think so. I made him a pair
> a couple of weeks ago. (skod - since I was falling asleep as I finished
> the second one, I forgot to face them off square. Check them next time
> you have a wheel off)
Oh, so _that's_ why I kept getting black-flagged for wheel wobble last
weekend. I was kinda wondering about that... (;-)
Seriously, they worked great. I ended up having to face them off down to .600
because of an unexpected interference problem once the tires were mounted, but
everything worked out great.
The only way that I'll use spacers is if they are scrupulously hub-centric,
and the wheels are too. I had Dave machine them to be a tight fit on my front
hub outer bearing bosses, and my wheels have been machined to be a very tight
fit as well. In fact, I find I have to use a bit of anti-sieze on the snout to
slide them on. That minimizes the bending loads that the studs see as much as
possible. The only way it could be improved upon (other than spending the
money for wheels with the right offset, of course) would be to drill, tap, and
countersink for some flathead hardware to firmly lock the spacer against the
hub and hat, making the whole assembly as rigid as possible.
I can't advise anyone to use spacers, but if you need to, make them _precise_.
Don't buy a whole stack of the Mr. Gasket .125 "universal" spacers and expect
them to work for long. You'll be popping studs like popcorn, and it will be
very unpleasant. The spacers also have to have the proper OD to fully support
the wheel mounting area, or you'll knock the center out of the wheel.
I have a set of wheels with the center bores machined way oversize for my
bearing bosses. Dave also made me some thin steel rings to press in (with some
271 Loctite to keep them there) so that they would pilot right on the hubs.
The OD was an interference fit in the wheel bore, the ID was a tight fit on
the hub, and they are the right length to support the entire center bore in
the wheel. Very tidy, and definitely the right thing to do. Maybe I'm wierd
about it, but I've broken studs on the track before and I didn't like it a
bit!
You don't have to run centerlocks to make the wheels really _fit_ on the car.
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.
24 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
[email protected]
-> Seriously, they worked great. I ended up having to face them off down
-> to .600 because of an unexpected interference problem once the tires
-> were mounted, but everything worked out great.
Your first call-out was .600 to .625, so it looks like you were right the
first time. At least you could thin the .750 spacers; it's hard to put the
metal back.
-> been machined to be a very tight fit as well. In fact, I find I have
-> to use a bit of anti-sieze on the snout to slide them on.
Just wait for a cold day and see if you can get them back off!
-> The only way it could be improved upon (other than spending the money
-> for wheels with the right offset, of course) would be to drill, tap,
-> and countersink for some flathead hardware to firmly lock the spacer
-> against the hub and hat, making the whole assembly as rigid as
-> possible.
I've seen open-wheel cars do this. You might want to do it yourself -with a
bit of care you could do it with a hand drill, tap, and countersink. I'd
recommend countersunk Allen screws, not flatheads. If you have a set of spare
hubs I could just throw them on the rotary table.
-> (with some 271 Loctite to keep them there) so that they would pilot
-> right on the hubs. The OD was an interference fit in the wheel bore,
You're assuming the pilot is concentric to the bearing races.
Well, it *ought* to be concentric to the bearing races. Maybe next time you
have a wheel off you could check with the dial guage, or a piece of chalk.
25 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 24, Dave Williams wrote:
> You're assuming the pilot is concentric to the bearing
> races. Well, it *ought* to be concentric to the bearing races. Maybe
> next time you have a wheel off you could check with the dial guage, or a
> piece of chalk.
No, I _know_ that they're concentric, because I had them cut to size,
indicating on the bearing bore, when I had the hubs made.
For what it's worth, there is a huge variation in snout diameters on the Ford
(and aftermarket) 5-lug rotors. They run anywhere from 2.750 to 2.866,
according to my experience attacking fresh parts in boxes. I wanted my wheels
to pilot on them, so I had the wheels bored (and/or sleeved) to 2.752, plus or
minus, and then I had the hubs (for my track setup) and 1-piece rotors (for my
street setup) cut to 2.750 on the nose. Dave's point is a good one, though.
It's not uncommon for the snout to be out .002-.005 with respect to the
bearing bores. They don't put one hell of a lot of effort into those castings,
so we get to do it for them if we want to do it right. This is one of those
bits of low-level "rightness" that goes a long way towards increasing the
longevity of the wheels and studs...
> BTW, the little rubber dust boots on your new Corvette calipers (I
> guess, being this is the asedan list, I should refer to them as PBR
> calipers) - anyway, the little rubber dust boots will last maybe one
> event before they vanish. PBR is using a low-temp rubber that can't
> handle the heat of repeated stops.
>
> Fortunately running without the dust boots doesn't seem to hurt
> anything.
That'd be 5 laps at Laguna Seca before you get to the point of dust-boot
flambee'. 3 laps, if you have a real _motor_.
In dry climates, they'll be damned near immortal. In the wet, you got maybe 6
months between rebuilds, since the dissimilar metals will do the galvanic
dance. It's the same old street-caliper story...
25 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 23, Calvin Sanders wrote:
> The design is what bothers me. The delrin does ride on the bolt and
> the bolt that GW supplies has threads inside the delrin. I really
> don't like that. But what really bothers me is that the inner sleve
> is shorter than the outter sleve. There are delrin bushings on each
> side of the aluminum sleve. When you tighten this up it tries to lock
> up the movement of the arm and the inner delrin sort of floats in a
> little free area. This means you have to uses very little torque in GW's
> design to keep from locking up the a-arm movement. I also see bending
> loads being transfered to the bolt in ways I am not thrilled about.
> So the compression of the delrin dosen't really happen except the pucks
> that locate the A-arm fore/aft.
That's as worrisome as I had feared, then. The pickup points on the K-frame
are designed to have a tubular spacer between the fore and aft flange to take
the compression loads from the bolt, and to allow the bolt to lock the entire
assembly into something approximating a rigid unit. This is a very important
function, IMHO.
Without this, the two flanges can move separately, which will reduce their
fatigue life. It will also allow bending loads in the bolt, and will allow the
bolt to fret against the flanges, which will be really hard on everything
involved. Further, since one flange runs on the bolt threads, that hole will
enlarge at a much greater rate, made worse by the fact that you can't torque
the bolt at all. Yucko.
It looked like that's the way it would work in their catalog. Hearing that you
can't torque the bolts properly to lock down the assembly on a non-
compressible central core dismisses the Global West Del-a-lum bushing from
consideration for use in _my_ car. It would undoubtedly _work_, for a while
anyway, but the longevity issues raised here are very real. It's one thing to
have a urethane bushing cold-flow and develop play. It's entirely another to
have the control arm mounting hardware and the K-frame itself slowly eating
one another.
They'll probably work well enough on the street. But I'd like to hear from
anyone who has run them either on a track car, or on a street car for 20-30K
miles, and has torn them back down to check on wear and the helth of the K-
frame flanges and the fasteners.
This is all just one bozo's personal opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Obligatory administrivia: The articles posted to the Mustangs Mailing List are
intended for the sole and private use of the subscribers here. Republication
of these items without consent of the author is expressly prohibited. In
particular, printing off hard copies of articles posted here and presenting
them out of context to a non-member, especially to a vendor whose products are
being discussed, is absolutely prohibited. Why do I mention this now?
Because, it seems, every time some of us frequent posters mention a vendor's
products in a negative way, we get very unpleasant phone calls from that
vendor within a very few hours. My personal record, for what it's worth, is
one hour and twenty minutes from the final carriage return to the phone
ringing.
If you folks want the list to be a place where we can feel free to discuss
both the pros and the cons of different products, then please respect the fact
thst this forum is a private mailing list, not some sort of public bulletin
board. Membership here is a privelige, by invitation of the moderator only,
and not a right.
It took me a whole weekend of hard thought to decide to post this article at
all, given previous history. That's a bad thing.
25 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Dave Williams writes:
>-> spacers were aluminum. I'll be running Duralights this season and I
>-> won't let spacers anywhere near them.
>
> I've run them on street cars with no trouble, but the kind of side
>loads a track car pulls concerns me. Looks like premium stud time
>no matter what.
I would not risk running cheap studs on a race car.
I spoke with Hal Baer of Baer Racing at length this weekend. All of the World
Challenge guys use spacers extensively. My friend Rob is running 3/4"
aluminum spacers for his PBR brake setup in front.. I can only conclude that
the problems I experienced were wheel related rather than spacer related.
I have a lot to post from discussions with Hal. For starters, there is a
chance that the Cobra R may get better brakes. However, this should not keep
you from adapting the PBR setup to your car. They don't currently run ducts
on the car and have no brake problems at Laguna (with the PBR setup), despite
the amount of tire they run and the super charged 351 with TFS heads. The Des
Moines street course is the toughest on brakes that they have run on.
My brain is fading and I cannot remember the name of the Castrol brake fluid
they use (it is a 3 letter designation like (but definitely not!) LMA). It is
$75/qt (or could it have been gallon?) and Hal says it is absolutely
mandatory. All of the other fluids result in a soft pedal. It just _works_
where the others don't.
25 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
>>-> spacers were aluminum. I'll be running Duralights this season and I
>>-> won't let spacers anywhere near them.
>> I've run them on street cars with no trouble, but the kind of side
>>loads a track car pulls concerns me. Looks like premium stud time
>>no matter what.
>I would not risk running cheap studs on a race car.
What does everyone use for premium studs. I am looking for something useable
that are a little longer than stock. I want to avoid 3" long studs and the
hassles they give when changing tires. I want something about .5" longer than
stock and of the best quality.
26 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Peter DelMastro)
[email protected]
I have a question about the correct way to set up the throttle position sensor
(TPS) on ECC-IV cars, that I hope you can help me with.
Recent issues of Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords recommended setting the key-on,
engine off (KOEO) voltage to be .98 volts. However, Probst, in his book "How
to Understand, Service and Modify Ford Fuel Injections and Electronic Engine
Control" says the proper KOEO voltage at closed throttle is .601 +/- 3%.
On my car the initial reading at the TPS was 0.6 volts. I've drilled out the
screw holes on the sensor so that I could adjust it and I've not got it set at
0.85 volts. I haven't noticed any effect of this change (either positive, say,
better throttle response; or negative, say, an error code from quick test).
Does anyone have any more info on the proper set up for this sensor ? Has
anyone else changed theirs and gotten a benefit ?
26 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
I've heard from many people that cutting your springs ruins
the ride of your car.
"Ruins" is a bit harsh. However, it can have unintended consequences.
Let's assume that the car is a '93 GT (that's what I have) with the stock
progressive rate springs. What happens to the spring rates if you chop off 1
inch or so?
Since you don't have the ability to cut off the ground end cleanly, you'd have
to cut off the other end, where the coils are widely spaced. This causes a
negligible increase in spring rate, when you'd really rather increase the rate
substantially. It has little or no effect on the progressive characteristics
of the spring. So bottoming will be more likely. I'd be more concerned about
damage to the struts than to the rest of the car -- scraping the ground is bad
enough, but hammering the innards of the struts will destroy them quickly.
I can say from experience that removing 1/2 coil drops the car substantially.
I would not recommend cutting off more than this. Don't use a torch, as it
will ruin the spring's temper. A grinder with a cut-off wheel works very
nicely. Use a hacksaw if you have to, but don't burn it off!
I would also suggest that you rent or buy an appropriate spring compressor
before trying this. You really can't reinstall the spring safely without one,
though many of us have been lucky.
26 Apr 1994
Bret Toll
[email protected]
Calvin Writes:
>When you cut the springs properly (no torch) you increase the rate
>slightly and lower the ride height quite a bit. The problem is you
>still have springs designed to give you proper suspension ride at stock
>height now with shorter travel. It will bottom out on bump stops often.
>Spring rate formula involves (wire diameter X some coeficient for the
>material they are made of) / (number of coils X coil diameter). So
>you see when you decrease the number of coils you increase the rate.
>The biggest change is in making the wire diameter larger.
I was just reading through the SVO motorsports catalog on my lunch hour and
noticed that their "Sports" handling M-5300-B springs have the exact same rate
as the stock progressives (425-530/200-300) but are supposed to lower the car
by 3/4 to 7/8 inch. Isn't this the same as you would get if you cut 3/4 off
the stock springs, or am I missing something here? Does anyone have these
springs, and if so do you have problems with the suspension bottoming out?
How is/would be the handling with the and what characteristics would change?
(I'm trying for reduced body roll on corners.)
26 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 26, Peter DelMastro wrote:
> I have a question about the correct way to set up the throttle
> position sensor (TPS) on ECC-IV cars, that I hope you can help
> me with.
>
> Recent issues of Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords recommended setting
> the key-on, engine off (KOEO) voltage to be .98 volts. However,
> Probst, in his book "How to Understand, Service and Modify Ford
> Fuel Injections and Electronic Engine Control" says the proper
> KOEO voltage at closed throttle is .601 +/- 3%.
Well, you have to watch out for that. In the caption for that table, he also
says that "Values vary according to spplication, so do not apply these to a
specific engine". His point in drawing that table was that the voltage
*varies* linearly, +-3%, over the range from closed to open throttle. The
absolute value isn't just spectacularly important. Since the EEC-IV has to
live in a world of very large production tolerances, it is specifically
designed to adapt over a very wide range of sensor values and work properly.
In the Watson book, there's a table for the different closed throttle voltages
for the different EEC-IV applications. Of course, production tolerances being
what they are, the closed throttle voltage listed in his table is for the 5.0L
SEFI setup is "0.49-1.22", which is one friggin' huge range.
In any case, the normal tuner's spec is .98v, and that is comfortably towards
the high end of the range. In particular, it's high enough to get you away
from any nonlinearities you might encounter in the very lowest end of the
scale (pots can be very noisy and nonlinear at the "zero" end of the scale).
The linearity is very imortant, and explains why driveability suffers do badly
when the sensor develops "dead spots" or other failure modes. Make sense?
Another possible benefit in setting the TPS voltage up a little bit to the
high end of the scale is that the pot will hit its upper stop, and send its
wide-open-throttle voltage, starting just a little bit earlier in the throttle
travel. This will make the EEC-IV transition into its WOT operation strategies
a bit sooner, which means that it'll get _out_ of its emissions-sensitive part
throttle operation and go into open loop, max power, full rich operation
sooner.
There's probably not a lot of benefit to be gained by spending hours trimming
the sensor to any particular voltage, plus or minus a millivolt, since the
EEC-IV will simply and happily adapt to whatever you give it, within reason.
As I understand it, there is no magic direct mapping of "TPS voltage in" to
"go fast". As long as it's linear with throttle travel, and follows the
throttle position, the processor will figure it out over time.
26 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Skod writes-
Another possible benefit in setting the TPS voltage up a little bit to the
high end of the scale is that the pot will hit its upper stop, and send its
wide-open-throttle voltage, starting just a little bit earlier in the throttle
travel. This will make the EEC-IV transition into its WOT operation strategies
a bit sooner, which means that it'll get _out_ of its emissions-sensitive part
throttle operation and go into open loop, max power, full rich operation
sooner.
This is really interesting because I have heard from a lot of ppl running
blowers that its better to put the TPS voltage at around 1.1-1.2. I guess this
is the reason why. I wonder if it helps.
27 Apr 1994
Dan Malek
Everything you said (that I deleted to save bandwidth) is correct. The TPS
voltage at idle should be 0.98 volts. However, remember that there is more to
setting the proper idle conditions than simply adjusting the TPS. Follow the
procedure outlined in the PCM manual to do this.
>Another possible benefit in setting the TPS voltage up a little bit to
>the high end of the scale is that the pot will hit its upper stop, and
>send its wide-open-throttle voltage, starting just a little bit
>earlier in the throttle travel. This will make the EEC-IV transition
>into its WOT operation strategies a bit sooner, which means that it'll
>get _out_ of its emissions-sensitive part throttle operation and go
>into open loop, max power, full rich operation sooner.
I am surprised you said this, based upon your earlier statements. The EEC-IV
really does not care about the absoulte values, so seeing WOT a few millivolts
earlier is not going to make any difference. I know you are really good with
the pedals, Scott, but I doubt you could find the position where this makes a
difference (Jes' jokin' :-).
>There's probably not a lot of benefit to be gained by spending hours
>trimming the sensor to any particular voltage, plus or minus a
>millivolt, since the EEC-IV will simply and happily adapt to whatever
>you give it, within reason. As I understand it, there is no magic
>direct mapping of "TPS voltage in" to "go fast". As long as it's
>linear with throttle travel, and follows the throttle position, the
>processor will figure it out over time.
That's exactly correct. But, you can send me $10 and I will tell you how to
adjust the TPS so it feels like you gained 15 HP :-). In fact, $20 might even
get 20 HP (It's only 9 AM and I am already having a bad day :-).
27 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 27, Dan Malek wrote:
> I am surprised you said this, based upon your earlier statements.
> The EEC-IV really does not care about the absoulte values, so seeing
> WOT a few millivolts earlier is not going to make any difference.
> I know you are really good with the pedals, Scott, but I doubt you
> could find the position where this makes a difference (Jes' jokin' :-).
Like I said- it's a _possible_ benefit. I'm not convinced that it makes any
material difference if the pot wiper hits the upper rail and sends out
fullscale voltage at 89 degrees of throttle butterfly movement, or 90deg. Mah
tootsies, and indeed mah bum, surely _aren't_ that sensitive!
Sean Parker pointed out one interesting tidbit, though, which is that a lot of
the blower-happy tuners are cranking up the idle voltage, so that they hit the
upper rail _extremely_ early in the travel- perhaps as early as 75-80deg. That
does give you a nontrivial difference in what the sensor says, versus the
actual throttle position. That introduces a big nonlinearity at the other end
of the scale, which seems to me that that's as likely as not to confuse the
EEC-IV into thinking "Oh, hell, I've got a screwed up sensor". But they do
seem to swear by it.
By doing that, the claim is that they spoof the box into getting into WOT
enrichment over a larger portion of the throttle position envelope, which
allows them a little more latitude in governing the fuel flow strictly by the
fuel pressure, and preventing the machine from leaning out.
Does it work? I have no clue. You tell me! That's powertrain stuff, and IMHO
trying to keep headgaskets alive downstream of a blower is a *life sentence*,
not a hobby. I'll happily leave that stuff to those of you who are good at it!
However, it would not surprise me at all if that particular hack ended up
going the way of the 160degF thermostat and the disconnected EGR spacer as
"the hot tuning trick that everybody's doing" that is later proven to have no
benefit, or even a net negative effect. You know the EEC-IV a great deal
better than I ever will. What do you think?
> That's exactly correct. But, you can send me $10 and I will tell you
> how to adjust the TPS so it feels like you gained 15 HP :-). In fact,
> $20 might even get 20 HP (It's only 9 AM and I am already having a bad
> day :-).
ROFL!
27 Apr 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Apr 22, Troy Wecker wrote:
> Does anybody know how the dampening is done on the gauge for non
> voltage regulated systems? If the gage is two sets of magnetic
> windings there may be a capacitor that can be removed which would
> restore the functionality. Anybody have a spare gauge to disassemble?
I have a spare pair of magnetic gages on loan from list member Marty Udisches,
which are take-offs from his car. While I can't take them apart (I promised
him I'd return them unmolested!) I could make some quick observations.
The actual damping of the movements feels as if it is done with some viscous
subtance, silicone oil perhaps. The actual pointer itself moves as if the
works are imbedded in honey. So I believe that the damping is done entirely
mechanically. It doesn't appear that any external electrical modifications can
change the ballistics of those meter movements.
According to the shop manuals, here is the explanation of the operation of the
magnetic gages: "The movement consists of 3 primary coils, one of which is
wound at a 90 degree angle to the other two. The coils form a magnetic field
that varies in direction according to the variable resistance of the sender
unit which is connected between two of them. A permanent magnet, to which the
shaft and pointer are attached, rotates to align with this magnetic field,
resulting in the movement of the pointer. The bobbin/coli assembly is pressed
into a meatal hosing with two holes for dial attachment. There is no
adjustment, calibration, or maintenance required for these gages."
This results in a gage that is nicely independent of the supply voltage, since
it really is essentially a bridge. The schematics are very poorly drawn, so
you'd never know this useful fact by looking at them. Operation at lower
voltages simply results in the gage reacting more slowly, but the same pointer
position is reached. The absolute strengths of the fields are affected, but
not their relative strengths, which is what determines the pointer position.
Pretty clever, if you ask me, especially since it led to the demise of the
hated Instrument Voltage Ragulator. Glad that they finally decided to
_document_ it after all this time.
Now, why'd they pour that viscous slop in there? No, don't answer that, I
already know. I guess I'm never gonna be satisfied.
An amusing sidelight is that the water temperature gage in Marty's panel has
what feels for all the world like a mechanical stop at 3/4 scale. Perhaps it's
a feature of just that particular gage, but that needle is _never_ gonna get
all the way up to the "hot" end of the scale...
So, the magnetic gages do show every sign of being calibratable, within
reason. That's good news! But they'll never be _fast_.
27 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Clifton Koch)
[email protected]
I'm in the middle of a MAF conversion to my '88 Mustang, and am wondering a
bit about the new computer I have. The computer I have is not listed in the
MAF installation guide I have, and I'm wondering if it's the Cobra computer.
Seeing that I'm putting in the 70mm Cobra MAF, it would seem logical.
Anyway, the numbers on the label of the computer are:
EEC-IV SFI-MA12A
F3ZF-12A650-DA A3M
61SM12AF10 45324-72.
Does anyone know of a source where I can track down the application for
this computer (i.e. Cobra w/manual tranny)?
On a somewhat related note, has anyone tried using 30# injectors on a
Mustang? These are the injectors I have and what the MAF is calibrated for.
I've just recently heard that using larger than 24# injectors may cause idle,
economy, and drivability problems. Anyone actually seen something like this?
I can only make a guess that this would be because the EEC-IV would have
problems with precise timing on very short injector pulse intervals, though
if the above computer is the Cobra, it was designed for 24# injectors, and 30#
isn't that much of a hop in size.
Regardless, hopefully I'll get everything back together tonight. I had
planned on finishing it yesterday, until I got to where I had to remove the
fuel rails. I counldn't find the appropriate tools *anywhere* in my area,
and ended up spending a few hours making my own. I know that MAC, Snap-On,
and Lisle make the tools, but I couldn't locate one in the area.
27 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
mustangs%[email protected]
[ Supercharger info buried herein ]
Among the many things I learned about Baer Racing's experiences with the
Mustang this weekend was that they have been racing with the same Vortec for
the past 3 years. That racing has included a bunch of Enduros and a lot of
racing in Phoenix and at TWS. They haven't had any problems. Based on the
tremendous abuse they've put that unit through without failure, I wouldn't
consider any other unless it had demonstrated similar longevity and
performance under comparable conditions.
They are concerned about weight to the extreme. They run a stock oil pan,
stock oil pump and no oil cooler. They have had no oil related problems
despite the car's ability to brake and turn at a level comparable to anything
in World Challenge A group. The bearings have never showed any signs of oil
starvation (and hence never get replaced).
They also run a stock blocks with stock rods, crank and bolts. Because of the
blower, they only spin these engines to 6,000, so bottom end failure has not
been an issue. For reasons I cannot exactly recall they did have to replace a
short block they had ran for two seasons or so. The procured an '88 block
with 108,000 miles. They decked the block to get the amount of quench they
desired and honed it. Other than mandatory cleaning as a result of the
machining, nothing else was done to the block. They ran the 108K mile
bearings that were in the block. They were in good shape. I asked Hal why
they'd risk the old bearings with new bearings being so cheap. He said they
didn't have the money to spare at the time.. Needless to say, the engine
still powers the car. This is a 351, by the way.
They run ported TFS heads with the blower. I didn't ask him about the boost
level. Baer places the power _cold_ at 440 HP. This is really a rear wheel
figure. The car, weighing in at 2800 lbs without driver, runs 127 mph through
the 1/4 mile. The formula I normally use says that 1/4 mile performance is
about 475 HP. He puts Kim Baker's Corvette at about 560 HP (many of the high
dollar teams are running professionally developed engines from the biggest
names in racing, not to mention the factory backed Lotus and Porsche teams).
Russ Hampsten writes:
>The whole reason I am looking into blowers is that to get the same
>performance (about 300-325 HP) I would have to modify so many things
>(heads, rockers, cam, manifold, TB, MAF, Headers, etc.) that I think the
>cost would come out about the same not even counting on my time. Also I
>am affraid of loosing my low end drivablity that some of the 300 HP
>engine packages might experience (I want my cake and eat it too!! :) ).
Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The supercharger loses a great
deal of power as it gets hot. It is impossible to prevent the blower from
heating the air as it compresses it. The only possibilty is to get rid of it
somehow (which is not an easy task). The engine in the Baer car runs really
strong for the first two laps and then it gets hot. The power drops off to
about 375-380 HP. Go park it for two hours, and it will run really strong for
another two laps. They've tried very hard to develop a solution but haven't
come up with one yet. There is a B group car that runs a normally aspirated
305 cu inch engine. It is about a 375-380 HP (again, very conservative
rating). Once the supercharger gets heat soaked, the 305 runs just as strong
as the supercharged 351.
You don't need new heads to make an honest 300 HP in a 5.0. Very minor
porting of the stock heads will suffice.
I know that a number of people on the list have blowers on their Mustangs. I
haven't seen any of them post their trap speed through the quarter mile. I'd
really like to see what they get for their first pass and what they get for
their 5th pass assuming they don't spray or ice the engine (just keep the hood
shut and run it again).
27 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
[email protected]
On a somewhat related note, has anyone tried using 30# injectors on a Mustang?
These are the injectors I have and what the MAF is calibrated for. I've just
recently heard that using larger than 24# injectors may cause idle, economy,
and drivability problems.
You heard right; this is a classic case of "more is NOT better". But it
depends on the application. 30 lb/hr is a maximum rating. Because of
electronic and mechanical inertia, there is a minimum amount per pulse that an
injector can meter accurately. Ideally, you want to install injectors that
are just large enough to handle the worst-case fuel requirements of the
engine, with about 15% to 20% to spare. Various sources recommend turning up
the fuel pressure if your requirements are only a few percent higher than a
standard injector size.
Remember too that MAFs also have a limited dynamic range, and cannot
accurately measure idle flows below a certain size. Typically the ratio of
max:min is in the neighborhood of 10-15:1. So here again you must be honest
with yourself about how much air the engine will flow.
Last, you would need a LOT of engine to use 30 lb/hr injectors! I would
consider them for a blown or nitroused 302, but IMHO they are too large for a
normally aspirated street application.
Good luck, and let us know how it idles... (1/2 :-)
27 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
Even though my '90 GT has 130K miles on it, I haven't really had to replace
many non-wear-n-tear parts. However, are there any parts which I should
replace anyway before they fail (e.g. timing chain, water pump, etc.)?
Funny you should mention this now, as my '89 with 126K miles has decided it
wants a new engine. However it decided this while on the race track... your
mileage may vary.
Everyone thinks of engines as the weak link. However, if a wheel were to fall
off your car, or the driveshaft turn into a pole vault, the results would be a
lot more expensive than a rebuild! So start with the critical pieces that
hold the wheels onto the car.
The first links in this chain are the lug nuts, which are dirt cheap. Don't
hesitate to replace them, and carry spares in case you lose one. Next in line
are the wheel studs, which are only slightly more expensive, and subject to
just as much abuse by ill-informed tire changers with impact wrenches. If you
can't run a new lug nut all the way down with only a light touch on the
wrench, replace the stud at the earliest opportunity. And don't forget to
inspect the wheel itself for cracks!
There are a number of drivetrain parts which should be inspected and replaced
as necessary. First on the list is U-joints. You really don't want to have
one fail! Peace of mind here is cheap, about $100. Have the driveshaft
balanced while you're at it.
20 Apr 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
While reading the latest issue of MM&FF, there was a mention of air lift bags.
Pardon my ignorance, but what are they used for, where are they installed and
what side effects happen from their use? Do they serve a *real* purpose or
are they just a cosmetic enhancement?
Air Lift brand air springs are not a cosmetic enhancement at all! They serve
a couple of purposes. First, they can be used as an adjustable helper spring,
for hauling heavy loads or playing games with ride height.
In drag racing, used differentially, they can help compensate for the torque
reaction that tends to lift the right rear wheel at launch. This trick has
been around for at least three decades.
I would wager they're not much use in road racing, but there's probably
some clever soul out there now plotting to use them... I'll have to look
at the SCCA rule book to see if they might be legal in A/Sedan.
29 Apr 1994
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Apr 28, John L. Kordash wrote:
> Does anyone know if the front rotors from an '88 T-bird turbo coupe are the
> same as those from an '88 Mustang GT? Modolo the ABS sensor disk, of course.
>
> If they are the same, is it difficult to transplant the ABS sensor disk from
> my existing rotors to the new mustang rotors?
No, they aren't. There are subtle differences in offset. The T-bird rotor
spaces its rotor working faces 2mm further outboard (if I remember correctly),
and has an outer bearing relief that's 2mm shorter as a result. The biggest
problem is that the diameter that the ABS sensor ring is pressed onto on the
T-bird rotor is machined for the pressfit, whereas it is left as-cast on the
Mustang part.
I picked up a set of T-bird Turbo rotors from my favorite wrecking yard and
ran them as cannon-fodder track rotors on a couple of occasions. They are
close enough to be useble on the Mustang, but not vide-versa. Sorry about
that!
You might keep checking around for prices. The Autospecialty part number for
that rotor is AR-8131. Their prices tend to be a bit lower than Raybestos, if
you can find them. Cal Brake Supply out here in the Bay Area has them, and
will ship mailorder if need be- (510) 293-9100.
03 May 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
I got my June '94 issue of "Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords" in the mail on
friday, and spent a few pleasant and amusing hours leafing through it, looking
at the articles on how to shove 9-liter motors into late Mustangs, and all
sorts of other dragracing stuff that has no applicability to my style of
street or track driving. Then I came across a tech article on preparing the
car for the strip that just about put my heart in my throat, and I feel that I
should share my feelings on it here.
On page 119, in an article entitled "Traction Action", the authors recommend
loosening the front control arm mount bolts to allow the the arms to swing
freely. This allows the bushing's inner core to pivot directly, metal on
metal, on the pivot bolt, and allows the serrated ends of the bushing to saw
away freely on the flanges on the K-member. They regard this as an
"improvement" in suspension flexibility, and recommend it for a street/strip
car.
I can't believe that a national publication would advocate anyone doing this
for a street driven car. The bushing's center core will quite happily eat the
K-member, and the setup will be exposed to a severly reduced fatigue life, not
to mention being noisy as sin. And the "improvement" in weight transfer is
almost completely imaginary, to boot.
Nobody is so impoverished that they can't afford the $35 it would take to put
urethane bushings in, and torque the bolts to spec, for Gawd's sake. Hell, if
you're that serious about weight transfer, install the arms in full droop, so
that the rubber in the bushings is preloaded in droop! That'll get the nose up
there!
To their credit, they recommend adding jam nuts to the now loose bolts to
prevent them from vibrating completely loose, allowing the arms to fall off
the car. Great.
They also mumble about the sway bar mounts binding up enough to "prevent free
weight transfer to the rear" for dragstrip use, so they use longer standoffs
between the arm and the bar, and that supposedly makes it all better.
Good grief. I don't think I've ever read anything so determinedly wrong-minded
in my life, and I wanted to post it here before someone else posted it in a
positive light, saying "Oh, look what the trick thing to do in New Jersey is
these days! They've printed it, it must be true!"
Please take stuff that you read in these magazines with one _huge_ grain of
salt. This particular article is the purest and most unadulterated form of
crap I have read in a glossy to date, and advocates doing things that will
damage the car and ultimately cost you money. And perhaps control of the car.
The letter to the editor that I sent directly to the magazine this weekend
reads very much like this article. But I guarantee that they won't print it,
just the same. Just watch...
Caveat friggin' emptor, folks.
04 May 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
Yesterday I was surprised to find my new front rotors waiting for me when I
got home. I had wondered if I'd have to put studs in them myself, but they
came with studs and bearing races already pressed in (you were right, skod).
I had ordered them last Friday, and had been told that I probably wouldn't see
them until this Friday.
Two rotors, delivered to my door, were just under $101 (including shipping).
Considering that the rotors alone, not including sales tax, would run at least
$120 at the cheapest "local" vendor (who's still a fair drive from me), this
is a pretty darned good deal.
If you need new rotors, this is by far the best price I've found. The info,
as posted here before is:
Northern Auto Parts Warehouse
1-800-831-0884
Bendix rotor number 141398 (same for both sides - this number is good for all
'87 to '92 5.0 Mustangs, and I believe for non-Cobra '93 5.0 Mustangs. The
Bendix catalog is apparently a bit screwed up and doesn't list Mustang rotors
beyond 1990, but as long as you have this number handy you're in fat city).
I have no connection with Auto Parts Warehouse aside from this rotor purchase
- at the moment I'm just a very satisfied customer. Thanks to the person who
first notified us of this place (I think it was Dirk Broer).
Next question: I believe the correct way to prepare a new rotor is to lightly
score the surface with some sandpaper, with no particular pattern or
direction. Is this correct? In the past I'd always gotten used junkyard
rotors...
04 May 1994
[email protected]
On May 3, Mark Helpinstill wrote:
> My 87 GT is in need of new shocks and struts, and my cash flow is
> really low. Is there any place that is still selling take-off shocks and
> struts for 87-93 mustangs?
Also, don't forget Diversified Products. They bought all the take-off parts
from the '93 Cobra R conversions, and I doubt that they've gotten rid of them
all yet. I got a pair of 0-mile spindles from them for a decent price, and
there are certainly other bits as well. Not too much demand for the stock
struts, so they might be cheap there. They have lots of nice Ford arcana. Good
folks to know. (313) 459-0130.
05 May 1994
"Michael Q. Frnka"
I have been plagued with a rough idle for a long time and after seeing another
mustang idle much more smoothly with an elevated idle, I decided to adjust
mine a bit.
I thought I remembered hearing that you could just disconnect the ICS (idle
control solenoid), adjust the idle speed stop screw to the desired rpm,
reattach the ICS, and check the TPS voltage.
While looking at the Probst book, I found mention of a lot of extra stuff
including blocking and unblocking the orifice in the throttle plate with parts
from a special Ford tool kit.
As I don't have the special Ford tools, I went with the first method. Things
worked beautifully and the car idles better than it ever has (I bought it used
in '92). It is now very smooth right at 750 rpm whereas it used to hunt
between 500 and 750 sometimes almost dying in the process.
Does anyone see any problems with the procedure I used? What method is
prefered? I would think that adding underdrive pulleys or a supercharger
would require you to adjust the idle speed and that others have experience in
this area. Thanks.
05 May 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On May 5, Walt Boeninger wrote:
> Checked codes. KOEO didn't fail, but I got a stored code 14
> which says it's a TFI/PIP failure. Sounds good to me. Now for the
> questions
>
> 1) The Watson book mentions that the early TFI's were subject to
> failure. Is '86 'early'?
Yup. I have killed 3 TFI modules, in my time. They are around $70, and I now
carry one in my track spares kit as a matter of course.
> 2) With almost 100K miles, should I just replace both the TFI and
> the Hall effect sensor? Which is more likely to be the problem?
I'd just do the TFI, unless you have a strong reason to suspect that the Hall
Effect sensor is on its last legs. Early sensors used a plastic compound that
is supposedly more susceptible to deterioration in the presence of oil.
Couldn't prove it by looking at mine, though...
> 3) What kind of screws are used to attach the TFI module to the
> distributor? I haven't pulled the distributor yet, and could not
> see well enough and nothing worked. The Ford service manual
> doesn't describe them. They look like Torx....
7/32 hexes, and on the early TFI modules they're buried _way the heck_ down in
there. Later modules have more clearance for the screws. You need a special
ultrathinwall socket to get a purchase on those beasts. Lisle makes a "TFI
module wrench" that works very well.
You can replace the TFI module without pulling the distributor, but you will
have to loosen it and rotate it to get room to work. No biggie, really. Just
make sure that you use _lots_ of the supplied heatsink compound between the
module and the distributor. The Number One cause of premature deaths of TFI
modules is heat, especially from poor coverage of the interface between
distributor and module. The distributor is a pretty poor choice to dump heat
into, but it's all there is in the immediate neighborhood...
05 May 1994
Troy Wecker
[email protected]
> I got my June '94 issue of "Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords" in the
> mail on friday, and spent a few pleasant and amusing hours leafing
>
I'm still researching MM&FF's theory of setting the TPS to .98 volts @ closed
instead of .601 in the same issue (article on TB's/Mass Air ect). According
to the Ford EEC manual this should cause a bunch of EEC codes like TPS Out of
range ect. The manual has a graph with volts, throttle shaft angle and
tolerance ranges but not much else other than the diags for the trouble codes.
MM&FF also say to pierce the wires with diaper pins to get the .98 volts. I
will never pierce an external (not in passenger compartment) wire especially
ones that have "weather tight" connectors. I've seen quite a few bad
(oxidized open) wires from this, even after taping or using caulk. The wire
can be probed inside the passenger compartment near the EEC box or using
break-outs.
There's some great info in the mags but it has to be extracted and validated
sometimes (example: H.P. claims).
09 May 1994
Sean Pollack
[email protected]
A good while ago (about a year or more) people were talking about idle surges
in their 1987 mustangs.
Aside from the dirty sensors within the throttle body (TPS, etc.) it was
mentioned as a 1987 quirk. I had finally fixed the elusive problem and wanted
to make record incase others are still putting up with it.
To make a year long $1100 adventure short, the problem was cured when the
wiring loom was replaced.
In the process every sensor on my throttle body was replaced over and over
again thinking there was a bad sensor, the whole computer was replaced,
throttle linkages were replaced. The board's recommendation to clean the
throttle body didn't yield and improvements.
After the problem was resolved I noticed an improvement in gas mileage and
acceleration.
09 May 1994
[email protected] (Jay Fletcher)
[email protected] (Marc Fusco)
Sometime between the 1989 and 1991 model year Ford switched from a 3/4 inch
oil drain plug(s) to an approximately 5/8 inch (15mm?) oil drain plug(s).
On my '89, the stock plugs have a nylon washers. On my '91 the stock plugs
have rubber washers with a metal insert close to the threads.
The threads on my '89 drain plugs are fairly stripped, and I have heard of at
least one other list member who has had the same problem with his '89. I just
bought mine, with 40,000 miles, so I don't know if it has been abused or not.
My '91 has about the same milage, has only been serviced by me, and has
perfect oil plug threads.
Does anyone know if the two different plugs are interchangable? What are the
thread sizes?
Perhaps the dealers are not all aware of this change, and that's why there was
confusion about the type of washer required.
One other thing is that the plugs on the '91 are painted or coated on the
threaded surfaces.
09 May 1994
"Brian St. Denis"
[email protected] (Mustang Mail List)
If this is worth using, modifying, or plagarizing from, for the FAQ, please
do.
The EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) Valve is located on the back side (towards
the rear of the vehicle) of the EGR spacer. The EGR spacer is between the
throttle body and the upper intake manifold.
The purpose of the EGR valve is to allow exhaust gas to circulate into the
intake air in order to reduce emissions. NOTE: under WOT, the EGR valve is
closed.
On the back of the EGR valve is the EVP (EGR Valve Position) Sensor. This
sensor is used by the EEC-IV to determine how far the EGR valve is open. The
EVP sensor does not need to be removed for this operation.
The is what I did to remove my EGR valve:
0) Let engine cool.
1) There are a group of wires running right below the EGR valve. They have
a connector that is right there and should be disconnected. This will
allow for easier access to the EGR valve.
2) Disconnect vacuum line to EGR valve. It pulls off.
3) Use 1/2" wrench to loosen/remove upper nut holding on EGR valve.
4) Use 9/16" socket to loosen/remove lower nut holding on EGR valve.
5) Disconnect wires to EVP sensor.
Once removed, you'll probably see black gunk all in and around the valve. The
valve opens in wards so you can push on the pintle to loosen it up. It was
suggested to me to use carb cleaner to clean the caked on gunk off. When I did
this cleaning, I made some progress but the Check Engine light came back on in
a week or so. I didn't let mine soak so I don't know how well carb cleaner
can work for this application.
Another source of info of mine said that he doesn't try to clean items
associated with exhaust because the crud is so hard to get off that the
cleaning effort isn't really worth it.
On the other hand, I have priced EGR valves and I have heard from $89 to $110.
This simple mechanical part costs as much as a complex electrical/mechanical
device such as a portable CD player. That is obviously a rip off but since
this part is necessary for emissions, they can force you to pay that much for
this $5.00 part. Soap box off.
If you need to replace your EGR valve, you will need to know the calibration
code of your car. Each valve has a certain adjustment and the code will make
sure you get the correct one. The code is on a sticker on the B pillar (where
the driver's door closes).
10 May 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
> This may be a bad time to ask this, especially with the 155 mph
> convertible thing and all, but here goes anyway...
>
> I would like to try and get a "feel" for what a rear gear swap
> would be like and figured some numbers might help.
>
> Anyone have numbers to fill in the shift speeds in this table?:
> (I'm basing this on a 1990 LX 5.0 / T-5).
A while ago Scott Griffith posted the following info to this list. It's not
exactly in the format you were thinking of, but should give you what you're
after:
Begin excerpt from [email protected] Wed, 21 Jul 1993 08:33:01
>Your axle is an 8.8". Since this question comes up all the time, I
>decided to hack up a quick spreadsheet that shows the relationships
>here. Across the top are the available 8.8" axle ratios, down the side
>are the ratios in the stock T-5 tranny for each gear. The "factor", as
>I call it, is a simple constant for each axle ratio and each gear
>that, when multiplied by the engine speed in RPM, yields the speed in
>MPH. As an example, 4th gear with 3.27s at 5000 rpm is
>5000*(.02238)=111.90 MPH. This is a useful set of numbers for those
>of us with 85mph speedos who sometimes play at high speeds.
>
>I also included the RPM number for highway cruising at 65 in 5th, just
>so that you could have an idea of how high the motor would be
>buzzing. One other thing- this table is based upon a tire diameter of
>24.6 inches, which just happened to be the diameter of the Yokohama
>A008Rs that I used to run. Thses numbers will obviously vary based upon
>the diameter of your chosen tires. If anybody wants the spreadsheet to
>play with their own set of numbers, I could mail it out, I guess. It's
>really pretty simple stuff, though. It also includes the Tremec and
>World-Class T-5s, for completeness.
>
>tire dia. 24.60
> rear axle ratio
>T-5 ratios 2.73 3.08 3.27 3.55 3.73 4.10 4.30 4.56
>1st 3.35 0.00800 0.00709 0.00668 0.00615 0.00586 0.00533 0.00508 0.00479
>2nd 1.93 0.01389 0.01231 0.01160 0.01068 0.01017 0.00925 0.00882 0.00832
>3rd 1.29 0.02078 0.01842 0.01735 0.01598 0.01521 0.01384 0.01319 0.01244
>4th 1.00 0.02681 0.02376 0.02238 0.02062 0.01962 0.01785 0.01702 0.01605
>5th 0.68 0.03942 0.03494 0.03291 0.03032 0.02885 0.02625 0.02503 0.02360
>
>mph@5000 rpm
>1st 40.01 35.46 33.40 30.77 29.28 26.64 25.40 23.95
>2nd 69.45 61.56 57.98 53.41 50.83 46.24 44.09 41.58
>3rd 103.91 92.10 86.75 79.90 76.05 69.19 65.97 62.21
>4th 134.04 118.81 111.90 103.08 98.10 89.25 85.10 80.25
>5th 197.11 174.72 164.56 151.58 144.27 131.25 125.14 118.01
>
>rpm@65mph, 5th
> 1648.79 1860.17 1974.92 2144.03 2252.74 2476.20 2596.99 2754.02
End excerpt from [email protected]
10 May 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
A question for those of you with rear discs and adjustable proportioning
valves:
As described here in nauseating detail last month, I experienced some severe
shaking/pedal pulsation under hard braking at a track event. Due to the
severity of the pulsations I assumed it was the front rotors, and someone else
at the track said he was able to see the runout on my front right rotor when I
pulled the wheels. I obtained new front rotors last week, and had planned to
put them in this weekend.
However, I now question whether the front rotors are really the problem.
Yesterday I remembered that the pedal pulsations had gotten really noticeable
the morning that I left for the track. Immediately after I'd flushed the
braking system with new fluid and adjusted the proportioning valve all the way
towards "increase".
Just out of curiosity, last night before leaving work I adjusted the
proportioning valve back to the middle of it's travel. On the way home, and
on the way to work this morning, I've noticed significantly less pedal
pulsation. Since the proportioning valve only affects the pressure in the
rear braking system, I'd say this is telling me that my problem is really with
the rear rotors. Does this sound right?
10 May 1994
[email protected]
On May 9, Jay Fletcher wrote:
> Sometime between the 1989 and 1991 model year Ford switched from a 3/4
> inch oil drain plug(s) to an approximately 5/8 inch (15mm?) oil drain
> plug(s).
Well, sort of. To the best of my knowledge, the pan itself has always been
threaded 1/2-20 from '79 straight through '93. But there have been a variety
of different plugs used, with different sized heads. I have seen 5/8, 3/4 and
7/8 so far, and I'm sure that there are more.
The exact plug you use is not critical, nor is the sealing means. Interchange
them to your heart's content. I have had the best luck using some Earl's Stat-
o-seals (rubber O-rings bonded to the ID of an aluminum crush washer), but
damned near anything will work. Lately I've decided that it makes no sense to
be anal about it, and have just used the cheapo Nylon washers that come with
the inexpensive magnetic drain plugs I use. In the past, I've even used copper
crush washers to get a seal.
With a fresh sealing washer, you don't need to use much torque to get a good
seal. The manual says 15-25 ft-lb, and I imagine that most folks here who are
reusing their original plugs and sealing washers are really _leaning_ on them
to try and get a seal.
The plugs are very, very soft, by design. They are designed that way to act as
a fuse to protect the pan threads from stripping when the gorillas at the
Jiffy-Lube go after the plug with a 24" breaker bar. After all, it's a lot
cheaper to replace a 90 cent plug than it is to replace the friggin' pan!
Consequently, I believe that everybody here on the list should lay in a couple
of replacement drain plugs, the very next chance they get. The chances of
stripping one are fairly high, especially if your idea of how to get a
reliable seal is "use more torque". And they come with fresh sealing washers,
which will actually solve your problem. I like the "Help!" brand magnetic
plugs, which come on a bubble card of 2 for two bucks at the Auto Parts Club
near me.
The plugs, and especially the sealing washers, do have a finite life. I tend
to throw mine away about every 4 or 5 changes, simply because I know that they
threads are getting fatigued and feeble, and the nylon washers are getting
compressed and brittle. If you keep a few fresh plugs on hand, you'll never
have a reason *not* to use them if the ones you pulled out are looking tired.
End of sealing problems, and stripped plugs, at the same time.
10 May 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On May 10, Andre Molyneux wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, last night before leaving work I adjusted the
> proportioning valve back to the middle of it's travel. On the way home,
> and on the way to work this morning, I've noticed significantly less
> pedal pulsation. Since the proportioning valve only affects the pressure
> in the rear braking system, I'd say this is telling me that my problem is
> really with the rear rotors. Does this sound right?
Nope. By cranking up the grip at the rear, you got more _total_ braking effort
with a lower overall line pressure, since you were sending full line pressure
to the rears. So the car slowed more at a lower pedal pressure. The lower line
pressure will get you less shaking from the warped front rotors. Game over.
I rode with you at that event, sir, and take it from me, the ace rotor killer:
those puppies are _slagged down_. They are ex-rotors. They are doorstops. You
did 'em in, but good. You should be _proud_!
Replace 'em in good health.
12 May 1994
[email protected] (Joseph Edward Huesmann)
mustangs%[email protected]
Hi all... I hope I'm not going to decrease the signal/noise ratio by saying
this, but...
I got my subframe connectors (Ken's generics) welded onto my '89 GT today. It
took the welder about an hour and a half and he only charged me $75 because he
was supposed to do them last Saturday but his lift was being used by a friend
who took longer than expected (of course :)). What he told me was that
usually the floorpan is lower than the top of the connectors and it has to be
pushed up, though mine didn't have to be pushed up much.
Anyway, there's a HUGE difference between before and after installing the
subframe connectors. The car feels so much tighter and most of the body
noises have gone away. It's much tighter than just installing strut tower and
G-load braces which I had done before. I couldn't really notice any
difference with just the braces, but the SFCs really did it.
Now if I could only figure out what that knocking noise is coming from the
rear of the car...
12 May 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
Your experience with trying to buy bolts from Ford dealers is not surprising.
The last time I went looking for those same bolts, I was told they were not
available.
The stock suspension bolts are self-locking, which is good for Ford's
production line, but they are supposed to be thrown away if they are ever
removed. Combine this with the difficulty in getting replacements, and you're
screwed (sorry, I couldn't resist).
If you *know* you're going to be playing with these bolts very often, I would
recommend switching to Mil-spec hardware. (No, I haven't done this yet, but I
will the next time it comes apart.) I would not trust anything less in this
application.
You'd have to use some kind of locking hardware, because you really don't want
these bolts to come loose, and you don't want to check them any more often
than they have to. The easiest solution, nylon locking nuts, won't stand up
to much heat. There are metal locknuts available but they have a limited life
too. The right answer seems to me to be drilled bolts with castellated nuts
and either safety wire or cotter pins.
If you do replace the bolts with something non-stock, be absolutely sure to
tighten them properly (check the bolt specs for the correct torque, don't use
the factory specs which are for the factory bolts). The suspension design
depends on the bolt to crush the control arm against the inner sleeve of the
bushing. Done correctly, the nut and bolt need only hold this preload; there
is no relative motion of the control arm and bolt, and everything is fine.
(Use washers on both ends anyway!) If things loosen up, the control arm pivots
on the bolt, and you get into trouble very quickly.
See Carroll Smith's writings (particularly "Screw To Win" or whatever the
actual title is) for an introduction to the finer points of this topic.
12 May 1994
[email protected]
"Brian St. Denis" ,
> Only 2 dealerships said they had, in stock, the bolt I'm looking for.
> One was in Dallas, the other in San Antonio. I called the one in Dallas
> and he said he had one and that he would go get it in his hands for me.
> He came up empty.
>
> This to me is evidence to support some of our list members opinions
> that dealership service shops may not be the best place to get your
> car fixed. I wonder where they would get the bolts?
They would order it out of Ford corporate stock in Dearborn or whereever that
might be. Many of these fasteners aren't common service items. Those bolts
that you're looking for are generally only called for for repair of crash
damage, so normally the car will be sitting still for a long time anyway, and
the effects of a delay in getting them into local stock is minimized.
Getting parts out of Dearborn is about a 4-day delay, through my local Gawdly
Parts Counter Guy. Get to know yours _really well_. Buy him a beer or 10, and
do more listening than talking. Whether you know it or not, you _need_ those
guys, and you want them to be on your side.
The racers know from experience which parts they need to lay in a stock of
because they just aren't readily available, and which ones they don't need to
sweat. Highly stressed chassis fasteners like those really should be replaced
whenever they are pulled off the car, but many shops don't bother, or replace
them with inferior versions. The most horrifying thing I can imagine is for
someone to go to their local Ace Hardware and replace a front control arm
mount bolt with some no-grade or Grade 2 off-the-shelf part that "seems to
fit".
The best thing is to scope out the nature of the work you're going to do, and
lay in the fasteners needed to do it _way_ ahead of time. Chuck's figure of 4
weeks is about right, because they'll almost always be two weeks late. If
you're pulling the strut, lay in some strut-spindle bolts. If you're pulling
the rear arms, lay in those bolts. Think through what has to come off the car
to do whatever project you have in mind, and then get the fresh fasteners that
you would use if it was a perfect world. You need them, because the roads and
tracks you'll drive on are _decidedly_ imperfect. Skip a meal if you have to,
but use good fasteners.
Just for what it's worth, my permanent floating spares stock has a full set of
control arm bolts and nuts, front and rear, two full sets of strut nuts and
bolts, a set of the extra-long rack mount bolts, a full set of the K-frame
mount bolts, and a full set of the pinion drive flange bolts. I have those
because I don't want to wait a few days if I ever need 'em. It also has a set
of rear shock mount brackets and bolts, because I've seen those break as well.
Nobody here can throw stones at the Ford fasteners group that does their
highly-stressed chassis parts. Those guys are extremely good, and design
fasteners that can take an absolutely mind-boggling level of abuse and
neglect. If you replace a Ford primary chassis fastener with something else,
it'd better be at least a real aerospace fastener (like an AN or NAS airframe
bolt), or you are taking a step _down_, and you do so at your own peril. The
Ford stuff is good, and it's not that expensive. And it fits. Use it in good
health.
13 May 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
On May 13, 11:47, Charles Smothers wrote:
> John Slikkerveer, field manager of Goodyear Tire & Rubber
> Company's racing tire division, suggested 245-60/VR16s.
> They are only 1/8-inch taller than our stock (25-3/8 inch)
> tires. At 8-15/16 inches versus 7-5/8 inches, they are an
> inch and a half wider! Their shorter 50 series sidewalls
> are more responsive to driver inputs than our Mustang's
> original 225-60s. Except for very slight contact between
> the inner sidewall and the rear part of the lower "A" frames
> when turning at full lock -- possibly correctable by adding
> an extra set of stock HO Mustang steering limiters, or
> slightly backspacing the wheels -- the new combination fits
> cleanly in our lowered pony's wheel wells.
A couple of things to keep in mind:
1) The 7" wide wheels on Mustangs (and I believe on T-Birds as well) aren't
optimal for 245 tires. An 8" wide rim would be a better match. I've had three
different individuals tell me that, after experimenting with 245's on 7" rims
on the track, they all went back to 225 tires. They felt that the 245's gave
them _less_ grip because the center of the tread buldged out slightly due to
the narrow rims. I haven't tried this myself, but getting this from several
different sources has convinced me to buy wider rims before getting wider
tires.
2) Adding extra steering rack limiters will take care of the rubbing problem,
at the expense of some of your turn radius. As a street car, I consider my
Mustang's turn radius to be mediocre at best. Adding additional limiters will
just make it that much worse. The limiters will probably take out more of the
travel than is absolutely necessary.
24 May 1994
[email protected]
> Micheal Herrmann wrote:
> >Guess what??? Clunking is still there! OK, now I'm at the pissed off stage
> >and took it to my local Midas shop for a free estimate, assuming that there
> >is something else under the front end causing this noise. Midas called me
> >back and asked where I had had the new struts installed, because the bolts
> >on the lower mount were LOOSE!!!! They also said there is a spacer that
> >should be installed between the strut and spindle...can anyone confirm if
> >a spacer is needed?
>
> It sounds like they installed a '86 or earlier strut. They have a wider
> spacing between the lower mounting ears. If you change over to the '87
> spindles on an earlier car it is real common to add an 1/8" spacer
> between the spindle and strut ears. Without it, all the tightening in
> the world won't help the bolts will loosen up from the vibration of
> driving. This is probably why the clunk came back after Midas tightened
> it.
>
> Don't drive your car like this. Its a real possiblility that those
> bolts could fall out. This could get way too exciting.
Well, well. Karl's right on on that one. If this is correct, then the struts
are scrap. When they tried to torque the mounting bolts down, they probably
just squashed the mounting ears together on the spindle forging, and the
pounding it took has opened it back up again. This stress will quite likely
have cracked the welds that hold the mounting ears onto the strut body. This
is a highly stressed area anyway, and I for one would not be inclined to trust
a strut that has been hacked on in this manner, especially once the ear was
pried back out to make room for the spacer...
If this was done by a dealer, you have a definite _real_ greivance against
them, and you should pursue it through Ford at once. *The car is not safe to
drive*, and they should pay the towing fee. If the spindle has been able to
move with respect to the strut, then the strut is scrap, as are the mounting
bolts. Do not let them reuse them, under any circumstances. The bolts have now
been loaded in bending two different ways, and generally beaten to hell. Game
over.
Ask your dealer (or better yet, some other dealer nearby) how to get in touch
with your Ford District Rep. If it was a dealer service manager you were
dealing with, then the Rep is your next stop. Ford also covers many items that
they repair with a Lifetime Repair Guarantee, which may or may not apply here.
Find out from the District Rep. At the very least, you need to get that
service manager called on the carpet by The Man, if this is a Ford service
department screwup.
If this wasn't a dealer, and instead is an independent shop, good luck. They
have clearly made a major error in getting the wrong parts, and trying to mung
them to fit regardless. You should find a competent shop to repair the damage,
document the hell out of everything they find and need to replace, and present
the screwups with the bill. And if they refuse to pay it, then (Gawd, I hate
to say this) get yourself a lawyer. In my humble opinion, it is pointless to
have an incompetent shop repair damage that they have caused, because I
personally cannot imagine ever trusting their work. It is far better to get
the necessary repair work done at a competent shop, and present the bill to
the bozos, along with a summons if necessary. But that's just me. I'd rather
take a trip to Small Claims than let my car go back into the hands of bozos.
Definitely fix it ASAP. Don't cut corners on this, as the car isn't safe to
drive in its current condition. As of this moment, it's not a car. It's a
paperweight.
26 May 1994
[email protected]
STDVAX.GSFC.NASA.GOV!OADDAB (DIRK BROER)
>Ford sets up the computer to run approx. 10% rich from the factory as a safety
>precaution. With a near-stock engine (like the one I proposed) it has been
>demonstrated that boring the Mass Air Sensor helps.
That may or may not be true but recent magazine test and most responsible
mustang specialty shops will admit that rather than changing the chip on a
mustang equivalent performance can be found by increasing the fuel pressure
(there is some debate on the mustang list whether this richens or leans the
WOT mixture) and advancing the timing to 13deg (from a stock 10 deg BTDC. A
recent post to the mustang list from an employee of Superchips - Peter
something - suggest that an engine dyno showed peak performance with something
like 3 deg extra at low rpm 2 deg in the mid range and another 3 deg at the
top end. He did mention that leaning the mixture somewhat increase top end
power. SInce the EECIV is an adaptive computer I suspect that increasing the
fuel pressure causes the EEC to compensate at low / part throttle rpms and
then at high rpm the computer may actually run the car leaner - I really don't
know what the effect would be.
>Due to customer complaints
>regarding valve noise (read: warrantee costs) Ford decreased the ramp speeds of
>the cam which quieted valvetrain somewhat but also decreased HP. If you had
>been following 5.0L performance testing since '87 you'll notice that they've
>slowed from low 14s to high14s. This is due to the MASS Air
>restriction, increased vehcile weight (air bags etc), and a softer
>cam. It's another reason why the current Mustangs are rated 10hp less
>than the '87 & '88.
Actually it has been well documented that the "decrease" in rated horsepower
from 215 to 205 for the standard H.O. 5.0 is due to a revised rating methode.
215hp is typical of one of the better engines commingg of the assebly line.
The average engine would rate at 205. There were exactly zero change in going
from one year to the next. The only change on record is the '88 californian
car change to MASS Air followed in '89 to all 50 states having MASS Air. I
suspect this change to MASS air has more to with keeping emissions under
control for longer periods - ie 100,000. Since MAF sensors don't require the
same look-up tables as MAP engines -and engines do wear...
>As for cobra owners, their cam is even softer than the current
>production cam. Class dismissed, Dirk...
Who told you that? Yes Cobras used softer suspension but were was it. To
maintain emission compliance in california you could do the intake + heads +
cam + headers + 3.27 gears (and probably a few other things) and fall under
the guise of a single EO number (see SVO catalog for details)
>[Additional comment about the previous post: It is really bad advice to
>recommend someone dump the cats on a current production car. Doing
>so may adversely affect the tuning, will make your car stink when I have
>to sit behind it in a traffic jam and will cause much grief when emissions
>inspections make it to the area. With large, high performance cats
>now available, any reasonable street performance is available while
>preventing those nasty carbon monoxide headaches. JGD]
Actually that was not the intent. Texas turbo makes a complete exhaust kit
with dual cats. This includes full length headers. Thrush also makes
replacement cats - since they are replacement they do not need and EO number.
Unfortunately some states don't allow altering the number of cats on the car -
mustangs have four.
As for the tune on the car - the EEC is actually and amazing computer. Through
the oxygen sensor it will keep its tune at part-throttle and idle. It actually
'learns' the engine tune and stores the appropriate data. For example - after
installing flowmaster mufflers and advancing the timing to 13 degress I
started the car. For about 1min the idle fluctuated between about 500 and
1000 rpm. Then it settle down. End result - it passed all emission test and
had significantly more power beyond 4500rpm (seat of the pants measurement).
It also idles like new even with 60,000miles. Add to that a great diagnostic
mode that not only does key-on-engine-off testing and dumping of codes but it
also does a key-on-engine-on testing of all actuators, testing for weak
cylinder, and with you goosing the throttle it does a WOT test as well.
A tuneup consits of sparkplugs, timing, tps sensor, run self test...
About the only thing that could screw up the computer is a camshaft with too
much duration - which would dilute the intake mixture at idle - which in turn
would require an extra rich mixture at idle. The factory claimed that the X-
303, B-303, and E-303 should not effect emissions. The peak power of the
wildest of these cams is about 5500 - stock is about 4500. At this point you
start fighting the intake runner length (too long).
Before you comment further on the mustang may I suggest "Ford Fuel Injection &
Electronic Engine Control" - available, among other places, from SVO. Good
book for general efi systems. Doesn't quite go into detailed programing (too
bad) but has alot of theory and some trouble shooting. For the price its an
absolute bargain.
For performance advice consider Kenne Bell's Mustang tech tips - last release
is October, 1989 - but good info for the mild build-up. On the wild side
there are many newer parts (read expensive) available on the market today.
There are also half-a-dozen rags dedicated to nothing but mustangs - just take
their articles with a grain of salt.
10 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
I just finished up getting a minor modification done to my Griggs Racing
torque arm that has improved its behavior pretty radically, and has borne out
a lesson in driveline alignment for me. I though some folks here might get
some good out of it, especially if you have done, or are thinking about doing,
radical rear suspension mods.
After I did the torque arm installation, I started getting a great deal of
driveline harshness and vibration coupled directly into the tub. Now, at the
same time, I removed all of the rubber bushings and went with spherical
bearings throughout, so I just attributed it to the metal-to-metal suspension
joints. After a few day's driving. I realized that it was more than I cared to
put up with (yes, it annoyed even _me_), so I got the car in the air and
started making measurements.
The Griggs installation doc recommends that you do whatever you must to get
the driveline included angle below about 3 degrees. This is the angle
difference between the transmission tailshaft centerline, and the axle drive
pinion centerline. The ideal included angle is zero degrees, as that prevents
leverage variations due to the angular differences in the u-joints from
setting up a vibration. As delivered, my torque arm was perhaps a bit out of
spec, and left me with an included angle of about 3.5 degrees.
I thought that was close enough. I was wrong. At full power and high speed,
the car vibrated badly enough that it was difficult to use the mirrors. I made
a temporary adjustment, using tapered spacers in the front mounting points
between the arm and the vibration damper mount holes on the axle center
section, that reduced the included angle to about 2.5 degrees. This reduced
the vibration to about the level it had been at before, and I was moderately
happy.
However, tapered spacers are a very bad idea, in that they load the bolts that
secure them in bending. Since these bolts are case-hardened socket head cap
screws, they are tough- but brittle. I have an event coming up, and did not
want to run it with bolts that are significantly overstressed in a major
suspension component.
So why not kill two birds with one trip to the welder (all in the name of
science, of course)? I took the car to my local fabricator, and had him torch
off the front pickup points on the torque arm, and reweld them into position
with the driveline included angle set to exactly zero degrees (the optimum) at
static ride height. This sets up the perfect driveline angle with no residual
stresses left in the torque arm hardware from trying to kluge it.
All I can say is "I don't believe it". The car is now smoother and more
vibration free than it has ever been to date, *even with the original stock
soft rubber bushings*. One or two degrees do make a big difference in NVH. I'm
now kicking myself for not chasing the driveline vibrations completely out of
the car years ago, as that might well have kept me from vibrating all those
trim panel screws out and losing them over the years. Even with the
Police/Taxi arms in the stock 4-link configuration, I had an included angle of
about 2 degrees, and I now know that that's enough to shake things up.
The pinion angle is not well controlled with the stock 4-link, and changes
pretty radically with bump and droop. In particular, if you have lowered the
car excessively, you may have a driveline included angle of 4-5deg (the more
you lower, the more positive the included angle goes, due to the short upper
arms). And that is enough to shake the living bejeezus out of the car, believe
me! So if you've lowered it, and you're experiencing engine-torque-related
driveline vibration, you might look into resetting the pinion angle to get the
total included angle to as close to zero as possible.
Here, I've been heaping (well deserved) abuse on Spicer for their crummy
balance jobs all these years, when there was a built-in vibration enhancer
that I was overlooking all along. Well, you learn something new every day...
If you have the Griggs torque arm, this is worth looking into. There have been
enough variations in the axle center section castings over the years that
setting up a jig to get this perfect in the general case is simply not
possible. It is very much worth your while in terms of NVH to flame-wrench on
the arm to optimize this. If you have the Global West traction device, or some
of the aftermarket launch kits that allow you to adjust the bite in the rear
suspension, you may also have changed the included angle. It's worth a quick
check, if the car's begun vibrating a bit under power.
I never could just bolt something on and let it be, I guess... Hope this helps
somebody who is just putting up with it.
10 Jun 1994
John Allan Dempsey
> mirrors. I made a temporary adjustment, using tapered spacers in the
> front mounting points between the arm and the vibration damper mount
> holes on the axle center section, that reduced the included angle to
> about 2.5 degrees. This reduced the vibration to about the level it
> had been at before, and I was moderately happy.
>
> However, tapered spacers are a very bad idea, in that they load the
> bolts that secure them in bending. Since these bolts are case-hardened
> socket head cap screws, they are tough- but brittle. I have an event
> coming up, and did not want to run it with bolts that are
> significantly overstressed in a major suspension component.
That is true about tapered spacers. But you could also use sperical washers.
That would take care of any problems, and let you use the tapered pieces (if
you wanted to) without any undue stresses on the bolts. They allow several
degrees of offset.
> So why not kill two birds with one trip to the welder (all in the name
> of science, of course)? I took the car to my local fabricator, and had
> him torch off the front pickup points on the torque arm, and reweld
> them into position with the driveline included angle set to exactly
> zero degrees (the optimum) at static ride height. This sets up the
> perfect driveline angle with no residual stresses left in the torque
> arm hardware from trying to kluge it.
Who is your local fabricator?
> All I can say is "I don't believe it". The car is now smoother and
> more vibration free than it has ever been to date, *even with the
> original stock soft rubber bushings*. One or two degrees do make a big
Hows the noise? Do you think tha the spherical joints add much? Lots?
Little?
Oh, and I give up. What is NVH?
10 Jun 1994
Ed Welbon
[email protected]
OK, since you brought up the subject...
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994 [email protected] wrote:
> or are thinking about doing, radical rear suspension mods.
Indeed I am.
> The Griggs installation doc recommends that you do whatever you must
> to get the driveline included angle below about 3 degrees. This is the
> angle difference between the transmission tailshaft centerline, and
> the axle drive pinion centerline. The ideal included angle is zero
> degrees, as that prevents leverage variations due to the angular
> differences in the u-joints from setting up a vibration.
In other words, the centerline of the tail shaft and the pinion should be
parallel?
OK, so how does one measure this accurately, are there calibrated surfaces on
rear tranny tail shafts and differentials? I have recently been futzing with
a Ford 9" pumpkin; the only surface that looks suitable for such a measurement
is *perhaps* the pinion snubber (not every pinion support has such a surface
BTW). The yoke itself might work, but it seems that this would be a most
inconvenient and error prone point of measurement.
I hope that you not going to tell me that I have to yank the yokes and use
some kind yoke modified to carry a level since that means replacing the crush
sleeve and resetting the preload (difficult on a 9", even worse on an 8.8").
> The pinion angle is not well controlled with the stock 4-link, and
> changes pretty radically with bump and droop. In particular, if you
> have lowered the car excessively, you may have a driveline included
> angle of 4-5deg (the more you lower, the more positive the included
> angle goes, due to the short upper arms).
I have read that the pinion angle is 180 degrees minus the smaller included
angle between the drive shaft centerline and pinion centerline. Is this BS? it
certainly seems to be at odds with the measurement that you suggest in that
minimizing one might maximize the other (unless the front and rear yoke
centerlines are such that they can coincide).
> you might look into resetting the pinion angle to get the total
> included angle to as close to zero as possible.
Well, my memory is awful, but how the heck does one adjust pinion angle on a
stang? OK, I know how one *might* do it (change length of arms etc.) but
there must be a better way. I don't remember seeing any eccentrics or other
adjustments on my SVO (I've had the diff and arms completely out).
10 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Yow! Eek! I seem to have touched a blind spot here. In addition to Ed's
excellent questions, I have also gotten a bunch of questions in private email
from a bunch of folks, basically saying "How the heck do you measure this,
anyway?", and "Ohmigawd I measured it and my new Pony is all out of whack-
it's dead stock and it's at 4 degrees- it must be a lemon and I'm gonna make
them take it back...". So I'll broadcast the response.
On Jun 10, Ed Welbon wrote:
> In other words, the centerline of the tail shaft and the pinion should be
> parallel?
Exactly correct. That's the goal: parallelism at static ride height, which is
maintained by the suspension as parallelism under load. The centerlines can be
offset by pretty much a arbitrary amount, and the driveline will still be
smooth without binding or cogging, IF the centerlines are parallel (or as near
to it as possible). Just 2 degrees out of parallel is enough to induce some
perceptible vibrations. But there's a big, *very important* caveat for cars
with stock suspensions, so see below.
> OK, so how does one measure this accurately, are there calibrated surfaces
> on rear tranny tail shafts and differentials? I have recently been
> futzing with a Ford 9" pumpkin; the only surface that looks suitable for
> such a measurement is *perhaps* the pinion snubber (not every pinion
> support has such a surface BTW). The yoke itself might work, but it seems
> that this would be a most inconvenient and error prone point of measurement.
It's actually very easy. First of all, the tailshaft centerline is
perpendicular to the tranny mount surface on the bellhousing, to within
production tolerances (a couple of seconds of arc, which is certainly better
than you'll be able to measure with normal shop tools). There's a nice
extension of that flat surface on the driver's side of the bellhousing. That's
one surface to measure, and that will give you the angle of the tranny
tailshaft, (and input shaft, and the crank- they should all be parallel, plus
or minus tiny production tolerances), offset by 90deg.
The second point isn't obvious unless you know how the axle's center section
is finish machined. The rear cover mounting flange is machined perpendicular
to the pinion centerline, and provides a nice, convenient surface to measure
against. Since it is also exactly 90 degrees offset from the pinion
centerline, you can just measure the bellhousing flat and the rear cover flat
and compare them directly.
For a 9-inch, the same thing applies. The pumpkin mounting flange is
perpendicular to the pinion centerline on that axle as well, you you can make
axle housing measurements without the pumpkin in place.
I used a Smartlevel that is accurate to .1deg. You can do just as well with a
swinging-weight angle finder, or a protractor and a spirit level. What really
matters is setting your car up supported on its suspension at its normal
static ride height.
> I hope that you not going to tell me that I have to yank the yokes and use
> some kind yoke modified to carry a level since that means replacing the
> crush sleeve and resetting the preload (difficult on a 9", even worse on
> an 8.8").
Nope. You _could_ do this, and it would arguably be more accurate, but the
additional accuracy is probably outside the range of most measuring
instruments. This is probably overkill. No, actually, it's overkill to the
point of being "turd polishing"...
> I have read that the pinion angle is 180 degrees minus the smaller
> included angle between the drive shaft centerline and pinion centerline.
> Is this BS? it certainly seems to be at odds with the measurement that you
> suggest in that minimizing one might maximize the other (unless the front
> and rear yoke centerlines are such that they can coincide).
That's Ford's definition (kindasorta), and it is one of the interesting
angles. But the more interesting angle is the total included angle, which
includes angularity in both of the U-joints. For NVH (noise-vibration-
harshness) work, that is more useful than looking at either U-joint in
isolation.
It's just that it's one heck of a lot easier to tweak the pinion angle than it
is to reset the engine/tranny centerline!
The Ford procedure for measuring pinion angles is very strange, and based
around accommodating the deflections in the soft stock suspension bushings,
run at the stock ride height. They have you load the car so a "controlled
checking height", which is totally meaningless in the case of a lowered car,
and then measure just the angle between the pinion centerline and the
driveshaft centerline. This completely ignores the effects of any angularity
at the front U-joint, and there are certainly _major_ production tolerances in
the motor mounts and tranny crossmember that set the tranny tailshaft
centerline. Shoot, if the car is set up with some fore-aft rake, that screws
it up as well. Much better to measure _both_ angles, and try to create
parallelism.
Now, here's the caveat, for you guys with stock control arms. The stock lower
arms with the huge oval bushings will allow the axle to move fore and aft
almost an inch and a half under power and braking loads, which will allow the
pinion angle to change +- 3-4deg. Trying to achieve perfection at static ride
height with no driveline torque with the soft bushings is absolutely the wrong
thing to do, since under heavy acceleration the pinion nose will climb and the
included angle will change. If you set a car with the soft bushings up for
zero angle with no torque being transmitted, and then go out and lean on it,
you may end up with a 3 or 4 degree angle on bushing deflection, and it'll
shake like a bastard.
I haven't characterized the stock bushings for this behavior, *but I'm
...
use for setting the angle. They build in some bias so that the axle
ends up where they want it to under acceleration. So be very cautious
trying to adjust this on a car with soft bushings. That's one of the
reasons I aimed the original article at folks who "had done or were
planning radical rear suspension mods".
In any case, Ford specs are based around a negative included angle at static
ride height, so that as torque gets poured into the axle, the stock bushings
will deflect and let the axle pivot positively until the angle is essentially
zero under heavy acceleration (which is where it matters most). If you've
lowered the car, or changed bushing materials, the axle will experience less
angle gain with input torque, and you may well end up somewhere other than
parallel. This procedure is aimed at folks who fall into the "modified
suspension" category. To wit: If you have hard bushings (police/taxi,
urethane, Nyliner, spherical bearings) that prevent the axle from cocking
under torque loads, then you'll end up with the wrong included angle under
acceleration (since the stock geometry was built with that deflection in
mind). You'll also probably have the means to change it, at least if you have
adjustable upper arms, the torque arm, or whatnot.
> Well, my memory is awful, but how the heck does one adjust pinion angle on
> a stang? OK, I know how one *might* do it (change length of arms etc.)
> but there must be a better way. I don't remember seeing any eccentrics or
> other adjustments on my SVO (I've had the diff and arms completely out).
The shop manuals state that there are "service arms with eccentric cams" in
the front bushings. I've never seen any! I believe that the best way to do it
would be to use whatever production slop there is to move the pickup points to
the extreme of travel in the direction you need to go. If that's not enough,
then you could actually relocate the pickup points, by slotting the holes and
then welding in a backing washer at the new location to take the suspension
loads. This is major surgery. Or you could go with adjustable control arms,
which really come into their own in working on this.
The last word, once again, with feeling: I'm really talking about cars with
modified suspension. If you go set up a stock suspension with zero angle, the
first time you open the throttle you'll hate my guts, as the angle gain from
the torque reaction will make the car shake like Charro. This only really
applies if you have the tweakers already in place, because chances are that
the geometry is therefore wrong since the tweakers don't deflect.
Now, if you have a slammed car with stock bushings that has a driveline
vibration that you think might be this phenomenon, you may need to play with
the included angle. But don't set it to zero! You'll need to experiment with
it, to be able to make this work with the soft bushings. Setting it up for
zero only really works with hard bushings (or with the torque arm, which
directly and rigidly controls the angle). In short, _radical_.
Sorry for the confusion on that! It's been a while since I've had such a
flurry of panicked mail. What a mess I made...
10 Jun 1994
Ed Welbon
fordnatics
So I have my eyes on a couple of control arms from a 1990 Ford something or
another that I want to use in a non-OEM application. I need to know what
vehicle the arms are from but the boneyards ID markings on the axle are mostly
illegible.
What kind of (maybe mid-sized) ford product has a 4-link rear suspension, with
coil spring mounted on the axle? The axle looked like a 7.5" ring gear; oddly
enough, the rear cover was plastic. It had smallish rear drum brakes. I
guess that axle mounted coilsprings rules out a fox, so I was wondering if it
might be from a Crown Victoria (?).
When I first looked at the rear end I thought it was a from a mid-sized GM,
but closer inspection revealed it to be from a ford product (amazingly enough,
when the boneyard "technicians" pulled the rear end, they didn't use a blue
flame wrench).
10 Jun 1994
Ed Welbon
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994 [email protected] wrote:
...
> On Jun 10, Ed Welbon wrote:
...
> > OK, so how does one measure this accurately, are there calibrated surfaces
> > on rear tranny tail shafts and differentials?
...
> It's actually very easy. First of all, the tailshaft centerline is
> perpendicular to the tranny mount surface on the bellhousing,
...
> There's a nice extension of that flat surface on the driver's
> side of the bellhousing.
Sounds OK for a v8, but I'll have to check if the SVO-pinto-matic
bellhousing exposes that surface.
> The rear cover mounting flange is machined
> perpendicular to the pinion centerline, and provides a nice,
> convenient surface to measure against.
...
> For a 9-inch, the same thing applies. The pumpkin mounting flange is
> perpendicular to the pinion centerline on that axle as well, you you
> can make axle housing measurements without the pumpkin in place.
OK, I considered something like this; in my current situation, it will not
be difficult, but if I do some later hacking it will be a more miserable
job since I will have to drain the rear lube and remove either the pumpkin
(heavy!) or pinion support assembly (much lighter). I guess I have yet to
ascend to rank of Gear_Head_Wizard since I find that gear lube stinks to
high heavens.
> I used a Smartlevel that is accurate to .1deg.
Those are great levels! I intended to use mine for this but wondered how
applicable they are, what length of level did you use or did you just use
the level sensor module?
[My recitation of an "urban legend" definition of pinion angle deleted]
> That's Ford's definition (kindasorta), and it is one of the
> interesting angles. But the more interesting angle is the total
> included angle, which includes angularity in both of the U-joints. For
> NVH (noise-vibration-harshness) work, that is more useful than looking
> at either U-joint in isolation.
In other words, worry about getting the tail shaft pinion centerlines
parallel and not the other measures.
> The last word, once again, with feeling: I'm really talking about cars
> with modified suspension.
...
> Setting it up for zero only really works with hard bushings
> (or with the torque arm, which directly and rigidly controls the
> angle). In short, _radical_.
My SVO is (probably too) slammed and has polyurethane bushings in all eight
spots at the moment, so I think it just barely squeaks by as radical (I hope
to install a torque arm in the near future, then it should merit the
appellation). Note that the SVO control arm bushings do not have oval cross
sections, they have circular cross sections (oval, how splendidly arcane!).
10 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jun 10, John Allan Dempsey wrote:
> > However, tapered spacers are a very bad idea, in that they load the
> > bolts that secure them in bending.
>
> That is true about tapered spacers. But you could also use sperical
> washers. That would take care of any problems, and let you use the
> tapered pieces (if you wanted to) without any undue stresses on the bolts.
True enough, I suppose. But a) I didn't have any on hand, b) I would have had
to elongate the holes in the center section web to acommodate the now-angled
passage of the bolt, since the head is buried in a tubular slug and couldn't
be manipulated, and c) I'm very averse to using a kluge, if the time and
materials are available to do the job right. To my admittedly perverse way of
thinking, it was much better to set the arm up precisely tuned to my
application, than to try and hack around the problem. Slowly, the longer I do
this stuff, I learn that there is no such thing as a shortcut. At least not
one that lasts.
> Who is your local fabricator?
I have several, all good. Over on your side of the hill, the hands-down choice
would have to be Paul McCain at Orb Engineering in Santa Cruz, 408 425 1921.
He did my subframe connectors, roll cage, and seatback supports. This
particular work I had done by Leonard Mullin at Custom Muffler in Mountain
View, 415 964 3055, since I also needed some exhaust work done while the car
was in the air. Here in the Bay Area, we're really spoiled for choice for
fabricators who do quality work.
> Hows the noise? Do you think tha the spherical joints add much? Lots?
> Little?
They don't really "add" any noise, except for some rattles that are slowly
developing as their internal clearances open up. I haven't yet replaced them
with the tougher high-precision 3-piece ends yet, and I need to. There is more
imapct noise telegraphed to the bodyshell, though. Driving up a line of Bott's
Dots is an interesting experience.
I doubt that there is much difference between the amount of noise you get with
these, and what you would get with urethanes. They are really suprisingly
streetable. That's why I'm working hard on my tubular front arms with the
spherical bearings throughout.
> Oh, and I give up. What is NVH?
Ahh. Noise, Vibration, and Harshness. I didn't define it anywhere else...
10 Jun 1994
Russ Hampsten
[email protected]
Here are two previous posts on this from Calvin and Andre out of my archives.
I hope this helps some. There is also some very good info on this in Skod's
BTPP write up, but I will _not_ re-post that because it is Skod's copyrighted
material. I am sure he would drop you a copy though if you email him
directly.
Russ
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.
Calvin
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.
Andre
10 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
[email protected]
-> OK, so how does one measure this accurately, are there calibrated
-> surfaces on rear tranny tail shafts and differentials?
Not usually. Getting a true reading can be a bitch without building some sort
of fixture. A piece of broom handle stuck through the U-joint yoke is close
enough for government work.
Angle levels are available from some hardware stores. Sears sells two
different kinds with magnetic bases. You can use a regular level, a
protractor, and trigonometry instead if you wanted.
14 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
> If you are considering spending that much money, you should call
> a company called Briggs Racing, they build some very good T-5's
^^^^^^
> for around $800.
Is that correct or should it be Griggs Racing?
I don't think this is a typo. I think Briggs Racing advertises in at least
one of the Mustang rags, and is a transmission shop. They're somewhere in the
east. (That's about all I know...)
Griggs Racing, on the other hand, is the originator of the much-talked-about
torque arm rear suspension. They're located on the central California coast.
You may be able to get a tranny there, but it won't be cheap!
PS: Chuck, can I send you this list of phone numbers to put in the FAQ? I've
seen quite a few posts recomending some place of business, but no phone number
or address (didn't have it, couldn't remember it, etc.). This might be a big
help.
Check the Auto Contact List already in the FAQ directory, courtesy of Dave
Williams of Fordnatics and alt.hotrod fame. (Are you here, Dave?) The version
I have is dated 4/1/94. Dave's list is rather complete --it's about 230KB!
Even compressed (with gzip) it's about 80KB.
If you have a number that's not in there, or found an entry that needs
updating, drop a note to [email protected]. Dave is always happy
to receive corrections and updates.
03 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
Y'all probably remember the little chip discussion we had here a while back.
Well, Peter Whales (or Wales, depending on whether you believe his mail header
or his sig) from Superchips has sent me one of these little puppies on the
condition that I report all of my experiences, both good and bad, back to the
list.
I've been pretty skeptical of chip manufacturer's claims, as evidenced by some
of my posts to this forum in the past. I now have a chance to test one out in
the real world. I'm hoping that my evaluation will include a dyno run, but
that's going to be relatively expensive, so I'm not sure if I'll be able to
pull it off.
This morning I ran through all of the EEC-IV's self tests on my vehicle to
make sure that I didn't have any stored codes that I might end up blaming on
the chip. It got a clean bill of health, so I'll probably go ahead and
install the chip this weekend. I've got a bit of preparation to make for a
track event at the end of the month, so I probably won't be able to devote too
much time to an evaluation of the chip until July (although I do plan to run
with it at the track).
Info on my car:
1992 Mustang LX 5.0
Intake silencer removed
K&N air filter
Flowmaster 3-chamber mufflers
Mobil 1 in the crankcase
The intake/engine/exhaust combination is stock in all other respects.
I'll make detailed report back to the list once I've got some real info to
pass on.
03 Jun 1994
Chris Behier
[email protected]
Well, I got one too for the totally stock '94 mustang GT. Same source as
Andre's, Peter, and I will be running similar tests. The first being Milage.
I have accumulated Data for my average couple of weeks in stock form and will
do the same with the chip. Also I will be trying it out at Sears Point on the
1/4 mile soon. 2 runs with no chip and 2 runs with it and we will be able to
see the difference there. As the Dyno goes, I am in the same position as
Andre. Dyno's are not so common and are not cheap, but maybe we can work out
something with a local Dyno. The good thing about the '94 is that its broken
in (14K miles and climbing fast).
I have had experience with the ADS chip for my '92 GT convertible. So far that
chip seemed to be doing OK, until I put 24lb injectors and a new calibrated
MAF. My idle became a sinusoidal curve bouncing up and down - totally wacket
out. I removed the chip, reset the computer and all was well.
So far the chip is about 2.5 inches long, 1 inch wide and behind it there is
the little connector for the port of the computer. To hold it in, one must
use the double sided tape tabs which are placed around the connector for a
tight fit. It is blue in color and has SUPERCHIPS embossed on the top of the
chip. Manufacturing seems to be great, it seems they put the chip and the
connector sticking out into the metalic cup, and poured molten plastic into
the blue anodized encasing to hold everything together. Just like the Jacobs
ULTRA coil. No problems with static or humidity except for the plug itself.
The box (FED-EX type envelope) came with a one page instruction sheet, a 7 day
satisfaction warranty card, a sales page, a plastic "SUPERCHIP" made in blck
with siver writting and double sided tape behind (kinda cheezy, stickers are
much better with colors and all) and the Chip encased in a clear plastic box
and bubble wrap. It is indicated that if there are any order errors, the
buyer needs to contact the manufacturer within 48hours. So far so good, I got
a quick response and prompt shipping or the "correct" item. Now for the
testing...
I hope this chip makes my '94GT faster, cause it really needs it :) I hope to
provide a full detailed report as soon as the results come in. Stay tuned...
03 Jun 1994
Peter Whales
> About this EXTREMELY restrictive stuff, there was an interesting little
> bit about mass air sensors in a SuperFord issue recently (I think it was
> April's issue.) They built up a 351W using different bolt on bits, and
> would dyno test the results at the end of each different bit. At
> some points along they way they swapped the stock MAF sensor for a 77mm
> and then something else (a 65 ported unit? I can't remember).
> Anyway, the interesting bit is that the stock unit made
> close to OR MORE torque and HP than the bigger unit. The guy
> doing the dyno testing thought that maybe it was because the
> larger area made the air "lazy" (I believe this was the actual
> word used.)
>
>
> If you're going to improve the breathing alot (heads, cams, intakes)
> and need more fuel, you need a new calibration for bigger injectors
> and this means a new MAF unit. I can understand that, my point here
> is that the larger unit does not mean better performance in and
> of itself. I don't think the stock unit is a major hinderance.
My engineers at SUPERCHIPS Inc (end of ad) have done a lot of work on MAFs.
The end result is that fitting a 65mm MAF will give 8-12HP at the wheels
measured on our dyno when matched to the correct injectors and correctly
timed. The fallacy that these things were restrictive came about because
changing the stock one for a larger one advanced the ignition and this gave
more power. Then you have to change the injectors to match the flow rate to
the different MAF size, thus correcting the fuelling at full throttle.
Expensive, but it worked.
Now you buy the MAF matched to injectors and the timing is stock. The fuelling
is correct when the right injectors are fitted.
06 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
Here's an installment in what will probably become a running saga about my
experiences with a product from "Superchips". If you'll remember, in a
previous episode Peter Wales from Superchips said he'd provide a chip to a
list member on the condition that the lucky winner reported back all of
his/her experiences, both good and bad.
Well, my '92 LX 5.0 was one of the recipients, and I installed the chip last
Saturday after doing some brake work. My experiences with the installation
and initial driving impressions are below. FYI, the particulars on the car
are:
1992 Mustang LX 5.0, 5-speed
Removed air intake silencer
K&N air filter
Flowmaster 3-chamber mufflers
Mobil 1 in the crankcase
Base timing at stock 10 degrees BTDC
Otherwise, the powertrain is stock.
A reminder, this posting is intended for the private use of Mustangs mailing
list readers, and is not intended to be re-distributed on other mailing
lists/newsgroups/etc. Copyright 1994 by Andre Molyneux, and all the rest of
that mumbo-jumbo.
INSTALLATION
============
The package from Superchips arrived on 6/1 by second-day UPS. Inside were:
A small plastic box containing the chip itself and three
small pieces of double sided tape.
A card with Superchips' return policy printed on the front.
A one-sheet photocopy with instructions.
A platic plate with "Superchip" in raised lettering on the front and double-
sided tape on the back.
The chip itself is in a plastic housing with a connector on one side for
hooking up to the computer. The other side had a blue metallic finish to it
and the word "Superchips" in raised lettering. Hand printed on the side with
a permanent marker was "A9L", the identifying number for my car's version of
the EEC-IV.
The instruction sheet listed various Ford vehicles and the location of the
EEC-IV for each one. The range of vehicles listed was interesting -everything
from Ford vans to a Merkur XR4Ti. Mustangs apparently aren't the only Ford
vehicles that Superchips makes chips for.
The instructions are very brief, as the installation process is pretty
straightforward. Disconnect the battery, uncover the connector on the
computer, clean off any grease or other substance protecting the traces on the
connector (the instructions claim that 95% of the installation problems are
caused by bad connections due to insufficient cleaning), plug in the "chip"
and use the provided double-sided tape to make a pad that will keep it from
coming loose. Re-connect the battery, and you're done.
The EEC-IV in '86-'93 Mustangs resides behind the passenger-side kick panel.
Remove one screw and pull two platic fasteners and you can remove the panel.
Now you can see the wiring connector and the lower end of the computer. A
plastic bracket holds the computer in place. The instructions tell you to
remove a 1/4" bolt to get the bracket out of the way, but in my case it was a
9/32" bolt.
During one of our e-mail converstations, I had asked Peter Wales if one needed
to clear the EEC-IV's keep-alive memory (KAM) before installing the chip (if I
could avoid it, it would help in attempting to do chip/no chip dyno runs back-
to-back). He indicated that you didn't have to, but in practice I think it
would be next to impossible not to. Most references tell you that
disconnecting the battery for 5 minutes will definitely clear it out.
However, the KAM is not non-volatile, so some degradation will most likely
occur pretty quickly.
I had planned to disconnect the battery for only a moment while I plugged in
the chip, but as it turned out that wasn't feasible. You have to pull the
wiring harness connector off of the EEC-IV in order to pull it out of its
cubbyhole, so it's going to lose power at that point anyway. I ended up just
disconnecting the battery's negative terminal for the duration of the
installation.
The wiring connector is held in place by a 10mm bolt (don't you just love
the mix of English and metric on Mustangs?). I loosened this bolt and
pulled the connector off of the EEC-IV and pulled it out of the way. Now
the EEC-IV could be pulled out, but it takes a bit maneuvering to get it
out of its cubbyhole.
The port (I believe it's a diagnostic port) that the "Superchip" chip plugs
into is on the opposite side of the computer from the wiring harness
connector, and is completely inaccessible until you pull the computer. The
instructions mention that the connector will be covered by a sticker or
removable plate. In my case, it was a sticker with the words "WARRANTY ITEM -
DO NOT REMOVE" on it. After praying to the automotive gods not to let my EEC-
IV expire since I'm probably voiding the warranty, I carefully peeled the
sticker back. Nope, no way I'm ever going to convince anyone that this
sticker has never been tampered with.
As the instructions indicated, the connector I exposed was covered with a film
of grease to prevent corrsosion. I carefully wiped off all of the yellow
grease, making sure that each trace was shiny and exposed. When the chip is
plugged in, there's some space left between the computer case and the chip
housing. I stacked the included pads of double-sided tape one one another
until I had a pad big enough to fill the gap. I needed to use all four of the
individual pads.
Since installing/extracting the EEC-IV was a bit of a pain, I decided to make
sure the engine would fire and run before I put everything away properly. I
reconnected the battery and started the car like normal. It started idling at
1100 RPM, which is pretty high, but I figured that was probably due to the KAM
being cleared rather than the Superchip. After about 20 seconds the idle
dropped to around 900 RPM, but sounded very uneven and the car was definitely
running rough. I decided to chalk it all up to the re-training of the EEC-IV
and stopped the engine.
...
After disconnecting the negative battery cable again, I unplugged the wiring
connector from the EEC-IV and went to install it back in its cubbyhole. Here
I hit a minor snag. The plastic bracket that holds the EEC-IV in place
doesn't have any extra clearance on the backside, so the added-on chip kept it
from seating completely. This isn't much of a problem as there are a few
other wiring harnesses in the area that wrap around the lower edge of the
computer and will keep it in place, but was still a minor annoyance.
I threw the 9/16" bolt for the plastic bracket in my tool box, seated the
computer as best I could, bolted on the wiring connector and put the trim back
in place. Time to see how the car behaves.
INITIAL IMPRESSIONS
===================
I started the car, which again started idling at 1100 RPM then dropped down
somewhat. The idle was "hunting around", as I could hear the exhaust note
changing continually and watch the tachometer needle bounce up and down. The
idle eventually settled at about 800 RPM, but was still fluctuating slightly.
My wife's comment on hearing the car was "It sounds like crap!"
I had a few errands to run, so decided to let ther EEC-IV "re-learn" on the
way. After a few stoplights the idle settled down some more, but didn't seem
to calm down completely. As the engine got up to normal operating temperature
I tried to pay close attention to the the car's performance. In the week
before installing the chip, I had put premium gas in the tank (I normally run
mid-grade on the street) and tried to get a good feel for the car's
accelleration at various throttle settings. I had hoped that this would let
me do a reasonable comparison.
Unfortunately, I don't think my butt is well-calibrated enough to make a real
judgement. It feels as though the throttle response _might_ be a little
better, and accelleration _might_ be a little better, but I really can't say
for sure. There might be something there, or I might be psyching myself out.
There's not a night-and-day difference. It still behaves pretty much like I'm
used to, but my seat-of-the-pants probably isn't capable of detecting a modest
(say 5 or 10hp) increase.
After about 20 minutes of in-town driving, I got on the freeway and made a
couple of accelleration runs. The car accellerated quickly and smoothly, and
the exhaust note seemed a little different, but again I can't really make a
determination. I wasn't able to go to WOT for more than a few seconds at a
time due to the traffic, so I was at part-throttle pretty much all of the
time.
When I got back and parked, and let it idle for a minute longer, my wife's
reaction was "It still sounds like crap!" The idle still doesn't seem to have
completely calmed down, although I think it's slowly getting there. Since it's
slowly changing for the better, I surmise that the EEC-IV is still fine-tuning
the idle. I should know for sure after a few more days of driving.
Basically, my early seat-of-the-pants testing has been pretty inconclusive.
Either the chip isn't making a significant difference, or I'm not a good
enough of a judge to tell. Aside from the idle, the installation certainly
doesn't appear to have hurt anything. The car does not seem to be down on
power, and isn't pinging, so installing the Superchip doesn't appear to have
caused any problems. However, I'm going to need to come up with a more
objective test (dyno runs, or perhaps quarter-mile trap speeds). As for
additional subjective tests, I'll be attending an open-track event at Sears
point at the end of this month. I'll probably run one day with the chip and
one day without, and see if I can notice a difference there.
Stay tuned. I'll give additional updates as time goes on. However, I don't
expect to be able to get dyno time (costs bucks - anyone want to start a "dyno
relief" fund for me? ;-) or E.T.s until July at the earliest - track prep and
visiting relatives are going to monopolize my time for the rest of June.
08 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
A couple of days ago, I wrote:
>Since installing/extracting the EEC-IV was a bit of a pain, I decided to
>make sure the engine would fire and run before I put everything away
>properly. I reconnected the battery and started the car like normal. It
>started idling at 1100 RPM, which is pretty high, but I figured that was
>probably due to the KAM being cleared rather than the Superchip. After
>about 20 seconds the idle dropped to around 900 RPM, but sounded very
>uneven and the car was definitely running rough. I decided to chalk it all
>up to the re-training of the EEC-IV and stopped the engine.
[stuff deleted]
>I started the car, which again started idling at 1100 RPM then dropped down
>somewhat. The idle was "hunting around", as I could hear the exhaust note
>changing continually and watch the tachometer needle bounce up and down.
>The idle eventually settled at about 800 RPM, but was still fluctuating
>slightly. My wife's comment on hearing the car was "It sounds like crap!"
Peter Wales from Superchips responded to my message, and told me that the
symptoms I encountered above were _not_ normal. Their chip is not supposed to
fool with the idle, and the EEC-IV shouldn't take very long to settle into a
decent idle, even after losing power. He suggested that either I hadn't
cleaned the connector on the EEC-IV sufficiently, or I had received a bad chip
(the installation instructions claim that 95% of installation problems are due
to insufficient cleaning).
I was pretty sure that I'd done a good enough job of cleaning (all of the
traces looked pretty shiny), but decided to clean them again last night. I
scrubbed them pretty hard with a Q-tip and some alcohol and re-installed the
chip. This time, after re-connecting the battery (it had sat more than long
enough for the KAM to be cleared again), the idle stablized at ~750 RPM within
about four seconds. Within about another 10 seconds or so it dropped down a
little further, the tach needle was quite steady, and the exhaust note was
"normal" again. Most importantly of all, my wife no longer thinks that it
"sounds like crap" ;-)
At this point I'd have to say that the oddities I encountered over the weekend
were caused by a poor connection due to insufficient cleaning of the
connector. This morning, on the way into work, the car seemed to feel a
little smoother than it had the past few days. Thanks to Peter Wales for
correctly diagnosing the problem. I should have re-checked the connector
myself when it ran so poorly initially, but my skepticism about the chip made
me far too quick to assume that it was the cause of the problem. I want to
make this as objective of a test as I can, and it's a little sad to see my own
personal bias creeping into this already. I'll try to do better in future
installments.
20 Jun 1994
Chris Behier
[email protected]
Introduction:
This report contains the up to date benchmarks of the '94 Mustang GT without
and with the SUPERCHIPS.
Packaging:
It took about 4 days to get to me. The SUPERCHIPS came in a Fed-Ex type
envelope with a sales page with Peter as the salesperson, the computer ID
number (T4M0 for the '94GT), my name adress etc. Another Page containing the
instructions was there, the chip was in a small clear plastic box with bubble
wrap inside (which I enjoyed popping) and a SUPERCHIPS black plastic (with
raised letters coated with mirror like paint) emblem with double sided tape in
the back of it. The chip was blue and black. The blue part was a metallic
embossed encasing punched to form a cup where the chip was placed inside with
the connector stiching out and black melted plastic was poured inside totally
insulating the electronics. Great quality manufacturing.
Installation:
The chip was relatively easy to install. On the '94, the pannels were of much
better quality than that of my '92. Precision manufacturing really shined in
that respect. The module was held by a white plastic bracket and a black
metallic bracket prohibited its access. Two screws held the black metallic
bracket and pulling off the three plugs off it gave me easy access to the
computer module. I disconnected the battery first as I knew that I had to
unplug the computer before it could slide out. Using a 10mm socket and wrench
the computer was unplugged and it slid right out. At the top of the computer
there was the port, which I removed the plastic cover with a screwdriver. The
male connection was sitting there, an extension of the little board that held
the electronics for the computer. I removed the grease that was on the
connector and I plugged in the chip. I reconnected the computer and the
battery, and started the car. The car was in "Limp Home" mode - and it really
sounded terrible, black smoke comming out of the exhaust and the car died a
bunch of times. The "check engine" light was turned on which signified
trouble. Like the instructions said, check the terminal one more time and
sure enough, there was a hard wax coating on the terminals. Paper did not
remove it, so I used a razor blade to remove all the wax until I had sparkling
connections. I placed the chip back on and it fired up smoothely. It did
take a minute to settle down from 1200rpm to 750rpm. The car ran very
smoothly, either the same or better than stock, I could not tell as the '94
ran so smoothly anyway. Installation time was 35 minutes. One must note,
that I did not unplug the battery once I cleaned off the connector the second
time, which would account for the time the computer needed to reset itself
after being in "Limp Home" mode.
Initial Test Drive:
I wrote: On my way to work this morning, I did notice that the car was a
little more "alive", or maybe it was my immagination, but upon passing
vehicles that were too slow int he fast lane, it felt that throttle response
and power was better that what I was used to. The difference was not the same
as changing rear gears but more like underdrive pulleys.
Milage Tests:
Stock - NO chip
Miles Galons 0f 92 Octane Fuel. Milage
274.5 12.608 21.77mpg
271.7 11.912 22.81mpg
Average: 22.29mpg
Stock - WITH chip.
Miles Galons 0f 92 Octane Fuel. Milage
292.5 13.564 21.56mpg
442.8 6.854+13.16 22.12mpg
299.7 13.390 22.38mpg
Average: 22.04mpg
Comments: The car was ran consistently back and forth from work and traffic
is about the same each day. The above figures show that no appreciable
increase in milage was obtained with the SUPERCHIPS. Or maybe I was a little
more lead footed than usual. I must add that I used AC with the chip
installed at least 1/2 the time (every time returning home) as that week it
was a scorcher out here. The stock values did NOT have AC on, so I suppose the
figures for the chip should have been a little higher.
1/4 mile tests:
Times w/o chip
Time mph Comments
15.813 87.2mph Decent launch, shifted at 5200RPM reaction time was about
.4secs, bog start.
15.806 87.4mph Same as above but a little better shifting.
with SUPERCHIP:
Time mph Comments
15.715 88.4mph Same stratergy as above.
15.745 88.2mph Shifting was not as quick this time (1st to 2nd throw...)
Comments: It seems the chip as improved my times by about .1 second and 1mph.
Then again, I do not power shift, but sometimes come close to it. I used to
get 15.7's in my convertible fully stock with underdrive pulleys and a K&N.
So the '94 is definitely heavy, and the power curve is real funny too. On a
dyno, it peaked way early (4K RPM) compared to my now souped up convertible
(5.185K RPM). From 4K RPM, the power steadily decreases, which really hurts in
drag racing as you stay usually above 3.5K RPM. If the engine were to be
unplugged, then the chip might have a better effect on the performance, but as
stock goes, the improvement is as much as Pulleys can give you.
Conclusion: I will try to be real honest here. The chip provided easy
installation and good instructions. Peter was was quick in responding in
giving me a chip to evaluate. Until I put the car on a Dyno, which might
happen this fall if I get lucky, I will not know for sure how much of an
increase in power it has given the '94 GT. I feel the chip might have changed
the peak of power a little further up in the RPM range, makes the car run real
smooth throughout all RPM's. At least the chip does not hurt performance :).
I will need to see the Dyno figures to see exactly what is going on. So far I
am satisfied with the SUPERCHIPS, but I feel that the chip will not show much
unless certain restrictive components are taken care of. Once the exhaust,
the air filter, maybe a manifold, TB and bigger MAF is replaced, I might want
to do the comparison again.
This leads me into another topic regarding the chip. I believe the
...
where the stock computer cannot optimize itself "alone" and the chip is there
to fine tune it. I would be interesting to see the performance difference
with that scenario, as the SUPERCHIPS advertise heavily in that area (turbo
and supercharged car with larger injectors).
As for performance stratergy, I would not start with a chip, as it is static
unless Peter can confirm that the chip is adaptive (but I doubt it). I would
modify the car's engine first and then get the chip to fine tune it all, which
I intend to do hopefully with the 9lb B&M supercharger that comes with a
SUPERCHIPS as timming retardation control. The chip is calibrated to the fuel
injectors I believe and so is the FMU. Once it is on the car ('92 GT Conv.) I
hope to Dyno that too as well as evaluating the milage and 1/4 mile figures.
Unless you are going just to do the unplugging of the intake/exhaust, gears
and other mods that does not deal with timming or fuel delivery, then the
stock chip can be placed on before the mods fall onto the engine.
I would like to thank Peter for the evaluation of the chip, and I hope this
enlightens anyone who was ever curious if the performance chips work. I my
eyes, they do, but seem dependant on other components for its full effect.
20 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
I'll add a few comments to Chris' report. FYI, I also received a chip from
Superchips for evaluation purposes. In my case, it's on a '92 LX 5.0.
On Jun 20, 8:11, Chris Behier wrote:
> Subject: SUPERCHIPS report.
[tons of stuff deleted]
> Milage Tests:
>
> Stock - NO chip
>
> Miles Galons 0f 92 Octane Fuel. Milage
> 274.5 12.608 21.77mpg
> 271.7 11.912 22.81mpg
> Average: 22.29mpg
>
> Stock - WITH chip.
>
> Miles Galons 0f 92 Octane Fuel. Milage
> 292.5 13.564 21.56mpg
> 442.8 6.854+13.16 22.12mpg
> 299.7 13.390 22.38mpg
>
> Average: 22.04mpg
I've now gone through a couple of tankfuls with the chip installed. Mileage is
up slightly (17.7 mpg vs. 17.3 average before), but not enough to fall outside
of the variations I've normally seen. However, I've probably been putting my
foot in it a little more often as I've been trying to evaluate the chip's
performance with the seat of my pants.
BTW, the above mileage is from mixed city/highway driving, falling more on the
city side.
[drag times deleted]
>
> Conclusion: I will try to be real honest here. The chip provided easy
> installation and good instructions. Peter was was quick in responding
> in giving me a chip to evaluate. Until I put the car on a Dyno, which
> might happen this fall if I get lucky, I will not know for sure how
> much of an increase in power it has given the '94 GT.
As I posted previously, subjectively I can't tell if the chip has made a
difference or not as far as engine power is concerned. Whether this is
because my butt isn't well calibrated enough, or is because the chip hasn't
made a significant difference, is open to question. Dyno time is sorely
needed here. Chris and I are probably going to have to wait until a few
months down the line when we might have a shot at dyno time as part of a club
event that will bring the costs down to something reasonable.
I'd really hoped to provide dyno numbers in the near future, but it just
doesn't look like it's gonna happen. It came down to paying for dyno time or
paying for track time at the upcoming Nor-Cal Shelby Club Mini-Nats. You can
guess where my money went...
> I feel the chip
> might have changed the peak of power a little further up in the RPM
> range, makes the car run real smooth throughout all RPM's. At least
> the chip does not hurt performance :). I will need to see the Dyno
> figures to see exactly what is going on. So far I am satisfied with
> the SUPERCHIPS, but I feel that the chip will not show much unless
> certain restrictive components are taken care of. Once the exhaust,
> the air filter, maybe a manifold, TB and bigger MAF is replaced, I
> might want to do the comparison again.
>
> This leads me into another topic regarding the chip. I believe the
> chip would be most beneficial when the system (the engine) is changed,
> where the stock computer cannot optimize itself "alone" and the chip is
> there to fine tune it. I would be interesting to see the performance
> difference with that scenario, as the SUPERCHIPS advertise heavily in
> that area (turbo and supercharged car with larger injectors).
>-- End of excerpt from Chris Behier
Actually, Peter Wales' comments have indicated that a stock motor is where
you should expect to see gains with the addition of a Superchips module. When
he first asked for volunteers, one of the conditions was that the car be
relatively stock as far as the engine is concerned. In addition, with regards
to a question as to why the module didn't perform well in a magazine test,
Peter responded:
On May 19, 11:30, Peter Whales wrote:
> Subject: Re: Performance Chips
> The problem with the test run in the magazine was that the engine was
> already developing 100HP more than the stock motor. Fitting a chip on
> that engine was a complete waste of time because the chip tuning was for
> a completely different engine. I spoke to Earl Davis who ran the test and
> he assured me that most of his readers had engines already at that state
> of tune and so it was a valid test on how a chip would work on one of his
> readers' cars!! He was very reluctant to re run the test on a stock car,
> probably because it would make him look a bit of a wally running such a
> non sensical test in the first place.
>
>-- End of excerpt from Peter Whales
Based on this, I would imagine that the Superchips module has been set up for
a relatively stock engine setup, and should show its biggest gains there.
While it would be interesting to check it out on a hopped-up motor just for
the hell of it, Peter's comments have led me to believe that we shouldn't
expect good results on an engine that has significant modifications.
Now we just need to come up with that dyno time...
21 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Andre Molyneux writes:
>Now we just need to come up with that dyno time...
And what a waste of dyno time it would be! Nobody has said it, but I will. I
don't buy it. I don't buy any of it. I think you'd have a better chance of
going faster if you took some laxatives or skipped breakfast.
Go spend that money on a emissions legal cam or some headers and you'll be
much better off. I feel you will get all of the benefits of the chip just by
advancing your timing.
I am not surprised at the results. A friend of mine at Ford programs the EEC-
IV for a living and is able to modify the code in any way. To change the
programming you need to de-solder the factory chip and replace it with a
socket so you can install new EPROMS. Failing that, just advance your timing.
The EEC-IV is proprietary and very little information has been released to the
public. That isn't so with the GM system. Some cars can definitely benefit
from an after-market chip. I don't believe the 5.0 in the Mustang is one of
them.
I don't think you can evaluate the chip in normal street driving (unless it
makes a significant difference). If you're running on a road course that you
have a great deal of experience on, you might be able to quantify an
improvement based on corner entry speed and how it effects your braking
points.
The drag strip experience that was posted was headed in the right direction,
though the results were very inconclusive. However, because no ambient
temperature and humidity were reported, I assume they were not collected.
Without that data, the drag results are completely meaningless (unless the
difference was significant, which it wasn't).
IMHO (of course),
21 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
On Jun 21, 10:33, Brian Kelley wrote:
> >Now we just need to come up with that dyno time...
>
> And what a waste of dyno time it would be! Nobody has said it, but I
> will. I don't buy it. I don't buy any of it. I think you'd have a
> better chance of going faster if you took some laxatives or skipped
> breakfast.
Come on now, Brian, stop beating around the bush. Stop pulling your punches
and tell us what you really think ;-) BTW, is there a specific laxative you'd
suggest?
Chris and I are in a unique position in that we're able to evaluate these
"chips" without having to ante up the ~200 bucks (each) that they go for. This
evaluation should include objective measurements that don't depend on a
finely-tuned butt. Chris' quarter mile runs are the closest thing to an
objective measurement that we've gotten so far, but are still dependant on
driver consistency and as you point out further on there are several other
factors that come into play.
Dyno runs are the only way to back up or dispute the manufacturer's claims
without having driver actions/perceptions muddying up the waters. As such, I
won't regard a dyno run as a waste of time no matter what the results.
> Go spend that money on a emissions legal cam or some headers and
> you'll be much better off. I feel you will get all of the benefits
> of the chip just by advancing your timing.
Up until we get some dyno runs proving otherwise, I'd have to agree.
Aftermarket headers are available from around $150, and considering how bad
the welds on the factory pseudo-headers can be (blocking exhaust flow) this is
surely money well spent.
> I am not surprised at the results. A friend of mine at Ford programs
> the EEC-IV for a living and is able to modify the code in any way. To
> change the programming you need to de-solder the factory chip and
> replace it with a socket so you can install new EPROMS. Failing that,
> just advance your timing. The EEC-IV is proprietary and very little
> information has been released to the public. That isn't so with the
> GM system. Some cars can definitely benefit from an after-market chip.
> I don't believe the 5.0 in the Mustang is one of them.
>
> I don't think you can evaluate the chip in normal street driving
> (unless it makes a significant difference). If you're running on a
> road course that you have a great deal of experience on, you might be
> able to quantify an improvement based on corner entry speed and how it
> effects your braking points.
I have to disagree here. The manufacturer claims that part throttle
power increases are something that you should be able to notice, and so their
presence or absence is worth mentioning:
Peter Whales wrote (on Thu, 19 May 1994):
>We have had our Mustang tested by Crane Cams Labs and we have an EO number
>allowing us to modify part throttle. The point is that most people do not
>drive on full throttle very often and 15% more power on part throttle is a
>definite boon. You have got to try it to believe it.
>-- End of excerpt from Peter Whales
As I've posted, I can't tell whether or not there's a difference between chip
and no-chip running on the street. From my experience, if you're considering
buying a Superchip module for a street Mustang hoping it will feel a little
quicker, I can't recommend that you spend the money. This portion of the
evaluation is strictly personal opinion, and IMHO the Superchips module has
not made a significant difference in the car's behavior on the street.
Back to Brian:
> The drag strip experience that was posted was headed in the right
> direction, though the results were very inconclusive. However,
> because no ambient temperature and humidity were reported, I assume
> they were not collected. Without that data, the drag results are
> completely meaningless (unless the difference was significant, which
> it wasn't).
>
> IMHO (of course),
>
>-- End of excerpt from Brian Kelley
But then, no one's ever accused you of being opinionated, right Brian? ;-)
I'm going to be running the car at an open track event this Friday and
Saturday, and plan to run one day with the chip installed and one day without.
However, since I'm just getting into this track driving thang and haven't run
at Sears Point before, I don't expect any revelations to come of it.
We still need that dyno time. If it shows a consistent power increase then
great, I'll sing the praises of the chip. If it doesn't, then I'll tell
everyone that I recommend they spend their money elsewhere. Gain or no gain,
it won't be a waste of time. I'm sure more than a few people on this list
would really like to see some numbers...
21 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
On Jun 21, 10:33, Brian Kelley wrote:
> Go spend that money on a emissions legal cam or some headers and
> you'll be much better off. I feel you will get all of the benefits
> of the chip just by advancing your timing.
Up until we get some dyno runs proving otherwise, I'd have to agree.
Aftermarket headers are available from around $150, and considering how bad
the welds on the factory pseudo-headers can be (blocking exhaust flow) this is
surely money well spent.
The Ford contractor that makes the headers has no monopoly on bad weld
quality! The MAC headers that will be installed on Son Of Beastie (any day
now...) came complete with some rather sloppy looking welds. Whaddya want for
$150, anyway? But I suppose too much welding rod is preferable to an exhaust
leak.
*Any* set of headers will benefit from a little time with a die grinder. This
is just one of those little details that make building a proper performance
engine tedious.
01 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> 1) I cleaned the EGR with carb cleaner and I still get KOER code 33, so
> what's up? Bad valve? No choice but to replace?
With the valve and sensor off the car, use a vacuum source (read: connect a
short chunk of line to the vacuum port and suck on it!) and make sure that the
valve is traveling through its range without sticking. It should move
smoothly, and you should be able to produce enough vacuum _by mouth_ to move
it throughout its range. This will also let you know it the diapragm is
leaking, BTW.
If it moves freely, suspect the sensor. It's just a pot attached to the back
of the valve, and it can be replaced seperately. If the valve works, but the
sensor is dead, you'll still get codes in the 30s. If you feel like it, attach
your VOM to the sensor leads. Its value should vary _smoothly_, with no "dead
spots", from about 5.5KOhms at atmospheric to about 100 Ohms at 10 in. Hg. If
it doesn't behave like this, then pitch it. Replacements are cheap, and are
self-adjusting. The EEC-IV willlearn the characteristics of the new sensor and
adapt to it, with no calibration required.
> 2) code 94 is a themactor problem on bank #2, would this be valve
> related? Air pump not putting out enough?
Probably not. It's more likely to be that there is some plumbing problem. What
the EEC-IV is telling you is that it was unable to induce an artificial lean
condition by dumping air from the air pump straight into the exhaust ports,
but this occurs only on one bank-which lets the solenoids that control the
overall operation off the hook.
This test should cause both oxygen sensors to go lean, as the air injection is
upstream of it. If this didn't happen on one bank, there must be a
blockage/pluggage of the air pump plumbing (perhaps the long crossover tube
between the right and left banks), or perhaps the oxygen sensor is brain-
damaged. But this latter is very unlikely, as it functioned properly in all
the other tests.
> 3) Continuous code 22 is the Manifold Absolute Pressure sensor, could this
> have been some phenomenon that will go away? Where is the MAP sensor?
Nope. This indicates that the MAP sensor is brain-damaged. If it's only
present in the continuous codes, then there is a very good possibility that
the problem is in the harness or plumbing, and not the sensor. These sensors
can fail intermittently, though. This one needs to be fixed. The motor will
not run really well without having this working, as the manifold pressure
(vacuum, actually) is a ncesessary input to the EEC-IV to index into the fuel
and spark map.
The sensor itself actually puts out a pulse train whose frequency varies with
the manifold vacuum. If the frequency goes out of range (by the pulse train
stopping, for example), the EEC-IV will go into one of its failure effects
management modes, which practically guarantees that the car will run like
dogmeat. You can find the MAP sensor at the top center of the firewall. It's a
black box about 2" x 2" x 1", with a single 3-pin electrical connector and
vacuum hose attached. It's mounted with two screws that pass through "wings"
that provide the support.
If you have a 'scope, the 5vp-p pulse train it puts out will vary in frequency
from ~160Hz at atmospheric to ~80Hz at 30 in. Hg. vacuum. Small change, but
very critical.
This sensor often gets munged when installing a strut tower brace, BTW, since
it sits in exactly the wrong place and usually has to be moved to clear the
firewall. This can lead to pinched hoses, for example.
> 4) How do you clear the continuous codes? I couldn't get them to go away
> by reconnection of the jumper wire.
Just disconnect the STI jumper wire and reconnect it, just after the codes
begin coming out. The test needs to be in progress.
> Thanks again for all your help. Now that I know all this about my car, it
> will probably make me some kind of anal retentive lunatic trying to make my
> codes run clean.
It's not luancy, let em tell you. If the car thinks it has a problem, _it has
a problem_. You're doing the right thing in fixing it! Good luck, and let us
know how it goes.
01 Jun 1994
[email protected]
> Huh? How do I know which releases? Anyway, I'm thinking it's the
> MC also, it is very difficult to bleed the rear brakes, seems to take
> forever, and alot of standing on the pedal to get just a little fluid
> out. The fronts flow very freely.
Ahh! That's a nice pointer. It sounds like the shuttle valve portion of the
stock proportioning valve is sick, or at least is getting in on the act
prematurely. What you're feeling is the very slow leakage of fluid through the
shuttle valve, which has somehow convinced itself that your rear brakes have
failed and is trying to prevent fluid from flowing to them (to preserve the
operation of your _front_ brakes). The fluid should flow equally freely to
both systems. If it doesn't, something is very wrong.
When you gutted the stock prop valve, did you leave the shuttle in the upper
bore? The lower bore (which has a preload spring and a little rubber cup seal)
actually performs the proportioning function, and is the only part of the prop
valve that should be gutted. The shuttle valve does need to be left in place
to preserve the safety feature of the split brake system. Without it, a
failure in either system results in a total failure of the brakes, since the
empty shuttle bore acts as essentially a dead short between the two, and
allows fluid from the undamaged system to leak out through the break in the
damaged one.
One other point on the shuttle valve. The reason that it's best to bleed two
wheels at once (one front, one rear) with the stock shuttle valve in place is
to kep the differential pressure down to a minimum. After all, the shuttle
valve's real name is "dual brake system differential pressure safety valve",
and its function is to _shut off_ any system that is leaking. Which is, after
all, exactly what bleeding the brakes causes to happen. So if you bleed only
one corner, and you get in a hurry, you can generate enough pressure
differential to make the valve shut off the system you're trying to bleed!
Opening a bleeder in each system keeps the differential pressure to a minimum,
and prevents the valve from shutting off either system.
So one thing to try is to open a _front_ bleeder, and give the pedal a nice
swift stroke. That should build up enough pressure in the rear system to kick
the shuttle back into the center, and let both systems flow again- IF the
problem was simply that the valve had shut off the rears.
If the shuttle is there, and moving freely, then the problem is elsewhere. I
would check to see if there was any contamination (like fragments of gasket or
seal material) that might be plugging the passages in the rear system,
especially at the prop valves. There is also the possibility that the
adjustable prop valve is connected _backwards_, with the high pressure coming
in the outlet side. That can certainly lead to some bizarre behavior. Don't
laugh, I've done just this (with one of the old Kelsey-Hayes cast valves with
no markings to denote inlet and outlet). Another possibility is if the prop
valve came vaccum-shrink-wrapped to a cardboard hang card. I have seen the
plastic get into the inlet ports and stay in there when the stuff was peeled
away to install the part, later creating a clog in the works.
I'd work through the secondary system, cracking flares and checking the pedal
effort needed to push fluid through, until I found the restriction. I bet that
it's one of the prop valves.
> BTW, the stock prop valve has been emptied of it's contents, and I'm
> using the LSC (mark VIII?) MC. Is this the right one? I think I got
> asked for an '87 when I bought it. It's cast iron as opposed to the
> Motorsport and Mustang aluminum version.
Ought to work, if it is 1.125" bore.
02 Jun 1994
Troy Wecker
[email protected]
Forwarded message:
> Of the 1979-93 Mustangs, only the SVO's (1984 to 1986) came with a
> five-lug pattern (although I'm not absolutely sure that the 1993
> Mustand Cobra didn't have them). The 1994 Mustangs have gone to
The '93 Cobra came factory with 4 lug 17" wheels and rear disk brakes.
02 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Clifton Koch)
fordnatics
I recently upgraded my car to MAF, 30# injectors (yes, 30), put in a higher
volume fuel pump, and thought I'd relate my experiences on the MAF
installation. I'll relate the fuel pump installation separately. If you want
to cheat and just see how the story turns out, search for 'Epilogue' now.
First, the car. The car is an '88 Mustang GT with around 39K miles. The only
engine performance mods done to the car to date are equal length shorty
headers (the subject of another writeup I put together once) and a K&N air
filter. I used to run nitrous on the car, but that's another story. The car
has always had a few minor problems running, which neither the dealer or
myself could ever track down. The car was quite bitchy about moving after it
was cold. The car would usually stall once immediately after starting, would
hesitate/bog when trying to get it moving, and would on rare occasion reward
the press of the accelerator with a backfire through the intake when trying to
get it to move. The hot idle was a bit on the rough side, but I thought this
was normal. The computer never came up with any error codes when checked.
There was also a slight surging when the car was at, say, 2/3s throttle. Not
major, but I could feel it. This probably makes the car sound sick, but in
general it ran quite well. The problems were more of an annoyance, and the
backfire was quite rare (though still disturbing).
The reason for changing the car to MAF is that I plan on adding a blower to
the car, as I want a lot more power than stock, and I found nitrous to be a
big pain in the butt. I'm a firm believer in the saying 'too much power is
just enough'. :-)
I actually bought the MAF kit in '93, when I originally planned on
supercharging the car, but other activities kept me from actually installing
the MAF or getting the supercharger. The MAF I bought is the 70mm Cobra unit
with the Cobra computer. I got this from Griggs racing (*not* the same Griggs
that makes the torque arm). The kit I bought is calibrated for 30# injectors.
I bought the injectors from a different mail order house (I don't remember who
off the top of my head, but at the time the second place was around $45
cheaper than Griggs for a set). The kit included the MAF, computer, MAF
wiring harness, MAF mounting bracket, some assorted mounting hardware (screws,
wire ties, crimp connectors), and a noticable lack of any sort of instructions
whatsoever. A call to Griggs revealed that there should have been
instructions and they'd send new ones, which they did.
Now, Griggs claimed that both the computer and MAF were calibrated for 30#
injectors. I don't have a clue what they meant by this, because the computer
was a stock Ford item and cannot be 'calibrated'. Perhaps they meant it was
checked for calibration with this particular MAF, but I don't know how you'd
do that. Both the computer and MAF had a 30 scrawled in the plastic with an
engraving pen of some sort.
My first order of business to the upgrade was replacing the injectors, because
if I hit any snags doing that, the rest of the upgrade couldn't be completed.
This involves taking off the upper intake manifold to get at the injectors.
The one good bit of information from the instructions I received for the
upgrade was about that stupid little bar going from the upper intake rear bolt
over to one of the lower intake bolts, and knew to take that off first.
Anyone know what that thing is for? The bar attaches to two bolt/stud like
things. You know, the little beasties that have a bolt with a sort of stud
coming out of the top for a nut, which keeps you from being able to get a
normal socket on the main bolt without hitting the stud. The instructions
said to discard the bar, so I did (into my big original-mustang-parts box).
The upper intake is really quite easy to get off, except trying to figure out
what vacuum lines are connected to it. You remove the assorted electrical
connectors from the air bypass valve and EGR valve, remove and block off the
coolant connections to the EGR spacer, remove the throttle cable, remove the
top trim plate, remove the 6 manifold bolts, and then try and find all of the
vacuum connections. There's one main vacuum line that goes to a vacuum block
on the firewall which I chose to remove at the vacuum block rather than fish
around behind the manifold to get it off. This requires cutting off the
factory clamp. Then I believe there were two more smaller lines going into
the rear of the manifold and one coming from underneath to the front of the
manifold. My manifold then lifted right off.
Now to take off the injectors. This turned out to be a bit trickier than I
expected. The problem is getting the crappy quick connectors on the fuel
rails disconnected. I went to a number of shops trying to find the correct
tool to disconnect them, which looks like a cylinder that's been cut in half
connected to a scissors like device. It's kinda hard to explain, but those
that have seen the tool know what I mean. The only place I found anything
close to correct was at a NAPA store, and it was way to small. So, after
driving to several parts stores and making several phone calls, I ended up
making the damn things. I used some crappy old Buffalo brand sockets I had
laying around, you know, the type that break if you try to use them for
anything more than about 10 inch/pounds. I measured the outer diameter of the
fuel rails, and chose the sockets whose outer points for the socket hole were
about the same size. I then cut them in half and took ... of work, but that
was quicker than all of the time I spent trying to find the tool. I had
planned on welding the pieces to a couple pieces of iron, but found I could
disengage the fuel rail connectors easily just pushing on the two halves of
the socket into the connector with my fingers. It takes a fair amount of
force to actually get the two rails apart, though. Then you just have to take
out a couple of bolts from each side of the intake, and the fuel rail is free.
I just pulled up on it and in most cases it pulled the fuel injector out of
the manifold, with one or two of the injectors still in the manifold. Oh,
yes, disconnect the electrical connectors to the injectors first.
On inspection of the injectors, the tip on one of them was cracked with a
small piece of the nylon (or whatever the material is) missing. It didn't
really look like it should've caused a vacuum leak or affect the operation of
the injector, but with the minor problems the car had, it may have. The
injectors are about the only externally removable piece of the engine that
hadn't been replaced in trying to get rid of the cold hesitation and
backfires.
Replacing the injectors was also fairly easy. I put the injectors on the fuel
rails, and went to slide them as a unit into the intake four at a time. The O
rings had a bit too much traction on the intake, so I wiped them with a rag
that had a tiny dab of oil on it. Just enough to put a very, very thin film
on the O-ring (not even enough to see). They slid right in then. I
reconnected the electrical connectors, secured the rails, and reconnected the
fuel line fittings (after cleaning them and lubing them with a very, very thin
film of oil).
Finally I put the upper intake back on in pretty much reverse order from how I
took it off. Cool, phase 1 done.
Now onto the MAF itself. The instructions didn't really mention how this was
to be mounted. Did I mention how crappy the instructions were? I think it's
time to do so now. They stunk. Let's see, they told you where to find the
computer, that it takes a 10mm socket to remove the connector from the
computer, more or less where the wires go (more on that later), and that's
about all of the usefull information contained in 3 double sided sheets. Back
to mounting. I ended up putting the bracket on the MAF and just twisting it
around until two holes on the shock tower lined up with those on the bracket
(there's a lot of them), and the inlet/outlet hoses looked like they were
pointing in the right direction. These, of course, were not the correct
holes, but the ones immediately below the correct ones.
After I had the MAF correctly mounted, I removed the passenger kick panel and
removed the computer. Now I had to get the MAF wiring to the computer. The
MAF wiring consisted of a rubbercoated cable, with a connector for the MAF on
one end, two wires with female type pins for the computer connector and two
bare wires on the other. The instructions said you might have to make a new
hole to get this to the computer. Duh! I decided to go through the rubber
grommet that the normal wiring harness used. I *carefully* used a drill to go
through the grommet about 3/4" above where the main wiring harness when
through. The hole pretty much closed itself up after I was done, and I was
having a hard time threading the wiring through it with the 4 loose wires
getting in the way. I ended up using some heat shrink tubing on the wires so
I could get them through in one piece. This worked out quite well, as the
cable fit through very tightly and is sealed well at the firewall. It's
rather hard to reach up far enough in the passenger kick panel to reach where
the cable had come through to pull it down to the computer, but I managed it.
Now for the wiring. The cable is about 3 ft longer than it really needed to
be, and since it already had the computer connector pins on two of the
conductors it couldn't really be shortened easily, so I decided to just coil
it up and stuff the excess up by the firewall behind the kickpanel. The
instructions with the MAF did not mention how to get the $%#&$ pins into the
computer connector. It turns out that there's a locking strip on the front of
the connector that won't allow any pins in or out of the connector. After a
few minutes I managed to figure this out. The two pins slid in easily and
locked then. Two snap splice connectors were supplied for the bare wires,
which are used to get power to the MAF. I *hate* these types of connectors.
They are almost guaranteed to cause intermittent problems somewhere down the
road. I ended up pulling out the two power pins from the computer connector
that were supposed to be spliced into, cutting about a 1/2" section from the
wire insulation, soldering the MAF wires to that section, sealing it back up
with heat shrink tubing, and reseating the pins. This should last forever.
Then there was a cryptic note about having to move two thermactor control
wires on the connector on pre '88 cars. I had a bad feeling about this, but
for the time being left the wires as they were (my car is an '88 and not a
pre-'88 after all), plus it was just concerning the thermactor pump control,
so it wouldn't be fatal if it was wrong. Bad choice. I now know I should
have moved the wires. Apparently whoever wrote the instructions was from
California and didn't realize that 49 of the states need the wires moved in
'88, as the MAF computers use different output pins to control the thermactor
valves. Of course it turned out that one of the wires was too short to make
it to the new position in the connector, and I had to lengthen it by about an
inch by splicing another section of wire in.
Ok, just about done now. I put the new computer in its bracket, reinstalled
the computer connector, and plugged in the MAF. A quick check that everything
was hooked up, and I reconnected the battery. No smoke from the computer, so
I turned the key on, still no smoke, all the familiar whirs and clicks, and
all the lights lit, so I started the car. It fired right up.
Epilogue:
This work seemed to go pretty well. Other than the usual lousy instructions,
which seems to be the norm for most performance auto equipment, it all went
pretty straightforward.
Everything seems to work, though I found later by dumping computer codes that
the thermactor pump was not working correctly due to the two wires that needed
to be moved on the computer. When I first dumped codes, I got a bit concerned
when the computer started coughing up all sorts of codes, but they all pointed
at the thermactor pump valves. Actually, I had discovered separately (before
dumping codes) that the thermactor pump hadn't been working for some time
under the speed density computer because the hose was disconnected from the
air pump. Apparently I didn't tighten that hose clamp when I put in the
headers (oops). Other than that, the car seemed pretty happy.
The cars idle has roughened up a bit when cold, but it still behaves better
than it used to. The old cold stall/stumble/backfire is noticably absent. It
just idles a bit rough for the first minute or so. I'm making a guess this is
because the computer is running open loop right after startup and the 30#
injectors are screwing up the mixture a bit. The hot idle is *smooth*. Much
more so than it used to be. Dunno if that one injector was actually bad, or
the Speed Density had anything to do with it, or what. It is also idling 100-
150 rpm *lower* than it used to. The part throttle surging is also noticeably
absent. For awhile there seemed to be some full throttle
...
been learning some of the fuel curves at the time.
I haven't had a chance to get any highway miles on the car, but my commute
mileage appears to be almost exactly the same. My commute is about 15 miles,
with lots of stoplights and mostly 45 and 55 mph zones, so it's a lot of
accelerating to 55-65, coming to a stop, and repeating that continuously,
though there is one 2 mile stretch I call the autobahn that's usually zipping
along at more like 90. In other words, it's not a commute that promotes good
mileage, or very good driving habits for that matter. In the past I've gotten
around 17 mpg on this commute, and have come up with 17.6 mpg under the MAF.
Other than the thermactor pump, the computer seems to be perfectly happy with
all of its tests, so it appears everything is working well.
Is the car any faster? Nope. Maybe slightly slower, but I expected that.
The speed density system can meter fuel to a stock engine just fine and
doesn't have the extra restriction of the MAF. These mods were done with the
idea of creating the foundation to add a lot more power, not for performance
from these mods themselves.
Be sure to join me for the next episode: The fuel pump replacement. Same bat
time, same bat channel!
02 Jun 1994
[email protected] (Clifton Koch)
[email protected]
Welcome to part 2 of my fuel delivery upgrades to my car. Part 1 was a
MAF/30# injector conversion, and this will cover a larger fuel pump
installation.
I had nabbed a write up that someone else posted once that was quite good on
this subject, but I did have some slightly different experiences, so I decided
to write this.
The car is an '88 Mustang GT which had just been converted to MAF and is using
30# injectors. Next up is installing a 155lph fuel pump.
I had wanted to check the fuel pressure before and after the upgrade, but
found I didn't have a gauge that the pin would go deep enough in the schrader
valve to open it and I wanted to get this done, so I blew it off.
First, I drove the car around until it was on fumes, or at least I thought it
was. Mustangs gauges suck, but I repeat myself, and I can drive for a couple
of days with my fuel gauge sitting on E. If I fill the tank when the fuel
light first comes on, I put in about 10 gallons (it's supposed to be a 15
gallon tank, right?), but I digress. I had meant to toss a gas can in the car
when it was really getting low, but I forgot. I made it home, and the tank
still had about a gallon in it. I'm not sure how much of that gallon could
have actually been pulled in by the pump.
The first order of business is to disconnect all of the lines going to the
tank. These consist of a fuel output, a fuel return, a vent line, and an
electrical connector. All of the fuel lines are towards the front of the
vehical. To remove the flexible fuel outlet line from the hard line going to
the engine, you need to remove a small clip which slides into the connector
and keeps the line from being blown off from the fuel pressure. This is very
easy to do, and the line slides right off. Be careful, as some gas may leak
out when you do this (it did on mine). Oh, yes, you should relieve any fuel
pressure from the system at the schrader valve first (which I had done). The
connector on the return line is a bit tougher. It requires that you push in
on tabs on both sides of the connector with a fair amount of force while
pulling the connector off at the same time. A pair of right angle needle nose
pliers worked well for me, but it took a bit of finesse. The vent line just
pulls off.
There is a single electrical connector towards the back of the tank which
needs to be disconnected. This Ys off on the tank to go to the fuel pump and
fuel level sender.
Now you just have to loosen the straps and the tank will come free,
but be *careful*. The other write up said his tank stayed in place when the
straps were loosened. Mine did not. It started lowering immediately as I
started loosening the straps. You should support the tank when loosening the
straps. I used a floor jack. Once the straps are loose, the only thing left
connecting the tank is the filler tube. It goes into the upper side of the
tank through a rubber grommet. Things will go a bit easier if you remove the
straps to get them out of the way, which are held in place by a free floating
pin on the one side. You can get the pin out by pushing through the small
hole on the side of the pin housing with a small screwdriver and pushing it
out the other side. I didn't attempt to remove the filler tube, as it didn't
look like it'd be possible to do with the tank in place. If it is possible,
it'd probably make this job a fair amount easier. I never removed the plastic
lower cover from the tank through any of this. I just moved them as a unit.
Anyway, I lifted up on the tank and kicked the jack out of the way. A little
shimmying back and forth got the tank to slide off of the filler tube. And
suddenly I was holding a tank too close to the middle with gasoline racing
towards the outer edge. It of course picked the edge that had the now gaping
open filler hole. A bit spilled out, but not too bad. Actually it was worse
than that. Apparently I got too much weight on or twisted the tank too much
when disengaging it from the filler tube grommet. The rubber grommet has a
thick conical outer surface with a very thin inner sealing area. The inner
sealing area ripped, which kept me from getting the job finished in one
evening. Either be really careful when pulling the tank off or plan on
replacing this gasket. If the filler tube can be removed with the tank in
place, this shouldn't be a problem.
Once the tank is out, it's easy to work on. The fuel pump assembly is
loosened by turning a locking ring on the top of the tank. It takes a bit of
contorting and twisting of the fuel pump assembly to get it out. It helps if
you look in through the filler hole so you can see what the assembly looks
like. There's a small rubber nipple on the fuel return line that appears to
direct gas over the fuel pump for cooling that's easy to knock off when
removing the assembly, so watch for that. I bought the fuel pump only, so the
old pump had to be removed from the assembly, the electrical connections
removed, and the crimp on clamp used to connect the high pressure fuel line
cut off. Remember to re-clamp the fuel outlet hose when reassembling. I
almost didn't. In order to get the old fuel pump out of the assembly, the
filter needs to be removed, but note the direction it's attached. The
assembly has a sort of U shaped piece of metal that the pump sits down it,
which is connected to the upper part of the assembly by 4 hex screws.
Removing these screws and opening up the U allows the pump to come out.
The new pump was exactly the same dimensions as the old one. The new
...
of flat rubber screen. The new one looked sorta like a stiffened nylon tube.
The filter is a press fit, and look at the direction that the original filter
fit on the original pump to get the orientation of the filter correct.
Replace the electrical wires, and put a clamp on the short fuel line going
from the pump to the hard line on the assembly.
Now just snake the assembly back into the tank. Again, it's best to look
though the filler hole so you can see what you're doing. Also watch that the
rubber nipple stays in place when putting the assembly back in. Then just
turn the locking ring back into place, and you're done.
To get the tank back on the car, I again used the floor jack. Be really
careful if you use a floor jack, as it wouldn't be hard to crush the tank. I
was watching the tank bottom very carefully as I lifted it. I balanced the
tank on the jack and got it as high as it would go (it won't be positioned
right for the floor pan hump until the filler tube is engaged), lifted the one
side and engaged the filler tube. I put a bit of WD-40 on the tube as a
lubricant, and worked the filler tube into the rubber grommet. I then had to
move the tank around a bit until it fit snuggly into the rear floor pan, and
re-attached the straps. Then I reconnected the fuel hoses, put the outlet
line retainer back in, and reconnected the power connector. After adding some
gas, the car started right up.
The new pump might be a bit louder than the old one, but it's also a lower
pitch, so I think it's a little less noticeable than the old one. So far I
haven't had any problems, and the fuel delivery system of my car should be
ready to supply plenty of fuel for a supercharger without doing anything silly
like cutting off fuel return fuel lines or some such nonsense. I never cared
for that practice because the fuel in the return line is partially responsible
for cooling the fuel pump.
Be sure to join me for the next episode: The supercharger .
Coming to a mail list near you soon (within the next few weeks, I hope).
06 Jun 1994
Russ Hampsten
[email protected]
(this got kinda long, so be forewarned)
Well I have decided to take the next step in improving my car's handling. Up
to this point I have (in order) SFC, Strut tower brace, g load brace, Eibach
springs, Monroe GP struts and shocks, -1 deg Camber alignment, and 16" tires
and wheels. I am really happy with the way the car handles (especially since
it is a convertible), but I am not happy with its tendency to follow the ruts
in the road. It was suggested on this list that the lower control arm rubber
bushings are probably the main contributor to this. I see that I have two
choices to correct this, install police/taxi arms (which have HD rubber
bushings) or install some other bushings in my existing arms. I think the
police/taxi arms are still a compromise (because they are still rubber) and
fairly expensive. I figure if I am going to do it I might as well go all the
way and change the bushing that are in my arms currently.
Now I have re-read EVERY message (done my homework!) on the list about all the
type of bushings posted over the last 5 or 6 months (I have _very_ large
archives). I have several alternatives, some kind of Poly bushings, Del-a-lum
from global west or custom fabricated Del-a-lum. The GW Del-a-lum seems to
have some design flaws that are pointed out...
Calvin says...
>The design is what bothers me. The delrin does ride on the bolt and the
>bolt that GW supplies has threads inside the delrin. I really don't
>like that. But what really bothers me is that the inner sleve is
>shorter than the outter sleve. There are delrin bushings on each side
>of the aluminum sleve. When you tighten this up it tries to lock up the
>movement of the arm and the inner delrin sort of floats in a little
>free area. This means you have to uses very little torque in GW's
>design to keep from locking up the a-arm movement. I also see bending
>loads being transfered to the bolt in ways I am not thrilled about. So
>the compression of the delrin dosen't really happen except the pucks
>that locate the A-arm fore/aft.
Also Skod points out...
>... On the other hand, they do something I consider to be a bit
>worrisome, which is to allow the Delrin liner to run directly on the
>pinch bolt that locates the control arm. The Energy Suspension bushings
>use a separate steel sleeve to serve as the inner sliding surface,
>which gives that surface a larger radius and lowers the unit loading on
>the softer plastic. This separate sleeve also locks positively in
>place, and acepts the compression loads from the bolt torque,
>supporting the pickup points on the K member. This stationary core
>prevents any abrasive contaminants (like a grain of sand) from cutting
>wear grooves in the bolt over time, which might happen in the GLobal
>West design if the Delrin sleeve should lock up in its reciever and
>start to pivot on the bolt itself. The bolt should locate and clamp,
>but not be involved in sliding friction, IMHO.
The responses for Poly were varied but overall more positive. Some previous
posts:
Skod says...
>I am currently running the Energy Suspension bushings, and I did get
>quite a decent performance benefit. They are very good, cheap, and easy
>to install. The do involve sliding friction between the urethane
>bushing body and tubular steel core, so for maximum benefit they should
>be installed with grease fittings and lubricted with Aqualube. This
>limits any binding and controls any tendency towards squeaking. The
>thickness of the urethane does provide some small amount of compliance
>(for isolation of high-frequency road shock), and they are amazingly
>smooth. They are absolutely the best bang for the buck there is. But
>they aren't immortal, and I did manage to kill a set of them in one
>season. I had to try _really hard_, though...
And Brian Kelly says...
>I know of only one person (Hi Skod! :-) who has had problems with the
>polys and only in the front. Several of us continue to drive on the
>lousy Detroit roads and run track events for the past several years
>with no problems. I have run roughly 45 Solo II's (250+ runs), several
>high speed track events and driven about 16,000 street miles on these
>bushings.
>
>I've tried an awful lot of different ways to make the Mustang handle
>better, and I don't know of anything that provides as much improvement
>for the price. For less than $100, you just can't beat'em.
both Skod and Brian Kelly have responded favorably while Chuck Fry did not...
>The main reason I object to urethane is that it's inappropriate for the
>application. Detroit has determined the best way to handle suspension
>pivots is by making rubber bushings serve as bearings. The inner and
>outer bushing sleeves are permanently bonded to the rubber, so the
>rubber actually deflects to handle the rotational movement. All the
>Ford factory bushings, from the lowly 4-banger to the police/taxi
>pieces, are built this way. The bushings do two jobs, serving to
>isolate vibration and provide pivoting action. Say what you will about
>Detroit being low-tech, but their solution to this problem is simple,
>cheap, requires no maintenance, and is very durable.
>
>By its very nature, urethane can't do this. Urethane doesn't deflect
>enough to serve as a pivot in the same fashion as rubber, so the design
>is a compromise: a stock size inner sleeve slides on the urethane. The
>unit loads are high, and the range of motion is small, so small areas
>of the urethane bushing get lots of abuse. Combine that with the fact
>that urethane is not intended for bearing use, and you wind up with
>very rapid wear and lots of slop very quickly. Regular greasing will
>help, but won't prevent the problem.
As far as custom Del-a-lum I would love to go this route, but I think it is
beyond what I think I could get into. I just don't know enough about it to
get it done. SO it looks like the poly solution sounds like the best solution
for me at this time.
Now I would like to ask some people who have already installed these some
...
you!!).
What is the trick to getting out the original bushings and sleeves? Is it a
machine shop procedure only?
What about installing the new bushings can they be pressed in a vise?
What about squeaking, how can I prevent this? I know they need to be greased
but what kind of grease and how (and where) is the zerk fitting installed or
do the bushings come already set up for this?
Is Energy Suspension the ones to get? If so where can I get them mail order?
Any other tips or comments are appreciated?
I hope I did not re-post any list members responses out of turn. I assumed
that it would be ok to re-post some excerpts since they were on list before.
06 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jun 6, Russ Hampsten wrote:
> ...I am not happy with its tendency to follow the ruts in the road. It
> was suggested on this list that the lower control arm rubber bushings
> are probably the main contributor to this.
Could be a big part of it. However, in the absense of knowledge about the toe
setting, I'd look at that first. Toe out and reasonable levels of negative
camber can lead to a car that has a mind of its owv on ruts, pavement seams,
and rain grooves. It's part of the price of having a car that likes to turn.
One thing you can do is to go for 0 toe or maybe 1/16" toe in, and then crank
in your toe-out just before an event. I've just kind of gotten used to a
certain obstinance on the part of the car when enocountering ripples, myself.
> What is the trick to getting out the original bushings and sleeves? Is
> it a machine shop procedure only?
Not at all. You retain the stock outer shell in place, and simply melt the
stock bushings out. I used a propane torch and a couple of pairs of channel-
lock pliers, as have others on the list. Do this in a well ventilated outdoor
area, and do it over some cardboard or plywood, since it gets messy as hell.
Your goal is to hear the outer bushing shell enough that you convince the
adhesive that bonds the rubber in place to melt.
Unfortunately, this also convinces the rubber itself to melt, and the onset of
outgassing and squirting of molten goop isn't far behind. Use safety glasses
if you have them. I did it by heating the bushing shell while simultaneously
applying pressure to the center core with the channel-locks, so that as soon
as the adhesive yielded I could see the bushing begin to move. After it was
out and the shell cooled, I just used an abrasive roll in my Dremel to clean
out the last of the rubber goop left in the shell.
> What about installing the new bushings can they be pressed in a vise?
They should slip right in under hand pressure (assuming that you've done a
decent job of cleaning out the last of the rubber cruft), since you are
retaining the stock outer shell.
> What about squeaking, how can I prevent this? I know they need to be
> greased but what kind of grease and how (and where) is the zerk fitting
> installed or do the bushings come already set up for this?
No, they don't. I got some Zerks that mounted in 1/4"-28 SAE fine threaded
holes. I drilled and tapped the shell for the Zerk, and then slipped in the
poly bushing (without its center core). I then drilled a 1/8" grease hole in
the bushing material through my Zerk hole to the center bore of the bushing.
Then, once I threaded the Zerk into place, it locked the bushing material to
the outer shell. And the grease passage allows the grease to get to the inner
core, which is where all the sliding friction occurs.
BTW, thanks to Chuck Fry for discovering the right lubricant to use for
polyurethane bushings. It's called Aqua-Lube, and it's available from most
boat stores (or you can call the manufacturer, D. A. Stewart, (708)655 4595 to
locate a dealer near you). It is a very tacky, aggressive, waterproof
polyurethane-based grease intended for boat trailer wheel bearings. It
exhibits a much longer MTBS (mean time between squeaks) than any other grease
I've used in urethane antiroll bar and suspension bushings, and is just damned
near impossible to wash out.
This includes your wrenching clothes, BTW... The stuff has all the charm of
recently-used blueberry bubblegum. But it _works_.
> Is Energy Suspension the ones to get? If so where can I get them mail
> order?
I like 'em, and at the price it's hard to complain. Lots of hot rod shops
carry them, or can get them. Central Coast Mustangs, Charlie's Mustangs, Jeg's
(where I got mine), Super Shops. Snag any Mustang ragazine and you'll fine 4
or 5 ads in the fine print.
I have personally killed the set of them that are in my car. The tolerances
have opened up, and the play is noitceable to me. However, my normal usage
habits in the car are a tad bit more brutal than most other folks, so I doubt
that you'll have the same problem as quickly. And even if you do, it's only
$35 to replace them outright. That's a far cry less than the $60 per rod end
I'll be spending for the next step along.
But if you have a local Mustang tuner, you might want to go make their
acquaintance. My finding has been that once you turn the torch on the car,
there ain't no turnin' back... (;-)
06 Jun 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jun 5, Clifton Koch wrote:
> The code it's coming up with is a 95 on both the KOEO and continuous memory
> segments of the test. The Probst book and one other source I have list this
> as being a 'fuel pump secondary circuit failure'. ..
> Anyone know which ones right? At first I thought it was the thermactor
> system since I had been having problems with that, but I don't understand how
> it could come up with that error on the 'immediate' tests. But then again, if
> it's the fuel system code, what exactly is it measuring? I thought the system
> was either on/off, and I can't find any sort of sensor related to it in the
> assorted wiring diagrams. So far I can't find a detailed description of the
> Fuel Pump Monitor signal. The car does run, and I can hear the fuel pump
> running at the appropriate times.
This is a good one. The EEC-IV actually monitors the voltage to the fuel pump
on the load side of the Fuel Pump Control relay, via a line that comes in on
Pin 19 of the EEC-IV connector at the processor box. If it doesn't see the
+12v to the fuel pump on that pin, it sets code 95.
Now, if the car starts and runs, that means the fuel pump is most certainly
working, and the relay is energizing and doing all the right things under EEC-
IV control. The EEC box just can't _tell_ that it is, since it has no sesnor
for the actual fuel pressure per se. It just hopes that it can see the motor's
supply voltage change when it switches the relay. Tilt!
You have an open in the harness somewhere between Pin 19 on the
processor connector and the output (switched load) side of the fuel pump
relay. It's probably right at the pin, and might have happened when you were
moving the thermactor solenoid pins, which are right next door. Fix that and
you're in fat city.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Foxbody 1994 /part 1
Return to Foxbody Tech Index
Go to Foxbody 1994 /part 3