file: fox94d.html
collected by: [email protected]
30 Aug 1994
[email protected] (The RX7Net)
This is in regards to all who are requesting info on Superchips Inc. I
received some startling news about Superchips. Some guy forwarded this
message to me--he got it from the porsche mailing list. Here's what was
forwarded:
> forwarded from the Audi Quattro net:
> 26 Aug 1994 15:21:29 PDT
> "Dan Bocek"
> Message-Id: <[email protected]>
> Organization: Digital Instruments, Santa Barbara, CA
> "quattro list"[email protected]
> Subject: Re: Boost problems solved
> Sender: [email protected]
> [email protected]
>
> > The ad is in the back of Euro Car mag. I don't have it on hand now.
It's a
> > place in Florida selling perf stuff for Audi's. The ad lists a 10Hp gain
> > for the 2.2 inline 5 in different bodies. The chip is $195. Don't
know if
> > they have a week-long test-drive like SuperChips. Don't even know if they
> > are competent.
>
> Well, since poeple are talking about SuperChips again, I though I'd
> mention an interesting tidbit I learned about the other day:
>
> Me and my friend Todd are working on reverse engineering the engine
> computer in his Turbo Eagle Talon AWD. In the course of our work, we
> managed to aquire a SuperChips "modified" Talon computer. It cost
> the original purchaser $350.00, and for that amount of money, what you
did was send in your engine computer and got it back a few days later
> supposedly modifed by SuperChips, along with an air bleeder valve which
> was to be put in line with the wastegate actuator pressure hose in
order to
> raise the boost pressure.
>
> So, we opened up the computer.
>
> Sure enough, there was now a SuperChips sticker over the EPROM, and some
> of the conformal coating around it was removed, but it did not look like
> the EPROM had been de-soldered. Cool, we thought, SuperChips has been in
> this business so long, they've figured out how to program EPROMs in-situ.
> But, since we hadn't, I desoldered it and put it in the EPROM reader.
>
> Well, I think you can guess the rest. The chip had never been removed
> because it had never been re-programmed. It was a completely stock
> computer.
>
> So, here's a breakdown of what you get for your money on a SuperChips
> modified Talon computer:
>
> Item Value
> ---------- -----------
> bleeder valve about 10 bucks
> EPROM sticker about 340 bucks
>
> Oh, and here's something else to drive the point home: we also managed
> to aquire a SuperChips modified Stealth computer. That computer doesn't
> even have an external EPROM, rather, the code is embedded within the
> microcontroller. So what did SuperChips do in that case? They stuck their
> sticker on an analog signal conditioning chip! Oh, and they also
> included the 10 dollar bleeder valve.
>
> Of course, everyone feels a difference in power with increased boost,
> but a bleeder valve is something anybody can buy at an aquarium store
> and install in their car in a few minutes. What gets me is the
> missrepresentation of their product. They get you to think that they
> have some all powerful mystical understanding of your engine computer,
> when in fact, they don't know jack (at least for Talons and Stealths).
> Can you say fraud?
>
> Now I can't speak for all of their modifed computers, but based on my
> two experiences with SuperChips computers, I'd be a bit cautious before
> purchacing ANY of their products.
>
> On a final note, I also managed to aquire a Hypertech EPROM for my
> Audi TQC. I dumped it, and found out that IT was stock as well!! (Yup,
> it had a Hypertech sticker on it!) What you got for you money with the
> Hypertech setup was a divided down boost signal, a bleeder valve, and a
> sticker. So at least Hypertech "modified" the computer a little bit, in
> that they reduced the signal going from the boost sensor to the input
> Analog to Digital converter electronically, but the total cost in parts for
> doing that is literally less than a dollar. Not only that, it is the
> wrong approach to safe boost increases "lying" to the computer about what
> the boost really is. Changing the EPROM lookup tables to match your
> increased boost is the rightous way to do this safely.
>
> I guess the moral of this whole story is buyer beware. If you wanna
> shell out tons of dough for an engine computer upgrade, make sure
before you
> buy it that at least they know more about engine computers and bleeder
> valves than you do.
> - --
>
> Dan Bocek
> [email protected]
30 Aug 1994
Talon List
[Well, I think you'll get a kick out of this. The president of SuperChips
admits to the scam I exposed last week. It seems that article I wrote found
its way to many email lists, including the Porsche list. It seems the
president of SuperChips is on that list. Here is his reply that got posted to
that list. -talon mgr]
Talon Digest EXTRA
Today's topics:
1) Peter Wales
Re: upgrading to a "performance chip", beware of your purchase
Send submissions to [email protected]
Send subscription requests to [email protected]
============================================================
Topic #1
Subject: Re: upgrading to a "performance chip", beware of your purchase
Peter Wales
30 Aug 1994 08:46:15 -0400 (EDT)
> Sure enough, there was now a SuperChips sticker over the EPROM, and some
> of the conformal coating around it was removed, but it did not look like
> the EPROM had been de-soldered. Cool, we thought, SuperChips has been in
> this business so long, they've figured out how to program EPROMs in-situ.
> But, since we hadn't, I desoldered it and put it in the EPROM reader.
>
> Well, I think you can guess the rest. The chip had never been removed
> because it had never been re-programmed. It was a completely stock
> computer.
GUILTY!
When we first came to the US we had never seen a Talon because they don't
have them in England. When we first opened the box there was no EPROM. It is
only the early cars which had the EPROM, the later ones had the program in the
CPU and it was not possible to read it or reprogram it without a lot more
information than we had. So we played with the car and found we could get
about at 15-20% increase in performance by increasing the boost pressure. So
we made up a kit and sold it on our try it and see basis. None were returned
as unsatisfactory.
One thing we did find was that the boost limit was dynamic. ie you could run
as much boost as you wanted providing the injectors could supply enough fuel.
So we started on the design of our boost graphic which was a device which
would allow boost pressure to be controlled at 500 RPM increments. This way we
could have 25 PSI boost on a Talon with the stock computer. As soon as we had
it perfected we withdrew the Talon and Stealth conversions and just sold the
boost graphic for Mitsubishi's.
We sold about 20 Talon and 5 Stealth conversions ands all of the customers
seem to be contented. We have sold 400 Boost Graphics! If you have the early
Talon computer with the EPROM, hang on to it because it is the only way you
can actually reprogram it to use larger injectors but you only need to do this
if 25 PSI boost is not enough. In other words, don't waste your time trying to
reprogram the Talon computer, if you want to do it yourself, make a boost
graphic.
The Audi computers are different in that they are 90% ignition and 10 % fuel
control as the fuel system is mechanical. The easy and cheap way to reproram
them is with a resistor and a zener to clamp the map sensor voltage and that
gives fixed timing over a certain boost level. This is fine for most
applications working within the limits of the fuel system. Once you go over
that limit, the map sensor does not have enough range to read the boost
correctly. Then you need to replace it and then you are in fore some heavy
reprogramming.
Don't tar us all with the same brush. The company in Florida is Total Audi
Performance and they are selling copies of chips created by us and our
competitors in England. If you don't buy an Audi chip from us buy it from
Intended Acceleration but do not buy a pirated copy from TAP. And just in case
there is any confusion Superchips Inc has nothing at all to do with ADS
SuperChips
Peter Wales
President Superchips Inc
02 Sep 1994 10:55:40 -0800 (PST)
[email protected] (The RX7Net)
Subject: Superchips, etc.
[email protected]
Sorry, I couldn't decipher the headers to reply directly (since I did get this
by private e-mail), but I'd figure I'd drop the reply here also, since it has
some relavance[sp?]...
>Tom Binford
>Subject: performance chips
>
>It has been common knowledge on Porschephiles for more
>than a year that the chips are useful for 951s (944 turbo)
>because they increase boost, and useless for 944s (normally
>aspirated). Increasing boost does compromise reliability
>for the 951s.
For most turbo cars, I would think the Superchips (or any other aftermarket
chip for that matter) would make a definitely difference, because all the chip
manufacturer has to do is up the boost levels and find a way around the fuel-
cut (if the fuel-cut does interfere with the increased boost levels). Of
course, increasing boost increases horsepower output, which, in turn,
compromises reliability. The DSM cars have a fuel-cut at around 20psi. The
RX-7 Turbo II (2nd gen.) has it's fuel cut about 1psi over stock (around
6.5psi). Have you ever been in a Turbo II with the boost turned up to 1 bar
(14.7psi) and the fuel-cut defeated? :)
>Unless we are arrogant, we aren't going to believe that
>Porsche or Mazda left out big, free increases in horsepower
>because they are incompetent. Both make high performance
>cars; both are good at it. I can see why Porsche would
>choose a boost limit for the 951.
Having the horsepower under it's performance maximum for any turbo car
increases it's engine lifespan and engine reliability. We can run around with
our turbos cranked to 20psi and making close to 400hp, but how long with the
engine (and car) will last?
The thing I got against Superchips is that all they basically did was up the
boost. When I plunk money down for an "aftermarket chip," i would at least
hope they did a little more than that. That is why I've been raving about the
new Techtom units which you can modify the fuel map, ignition map, etc. on the
chip itself!
01 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Dale Maurice)
At 8:14 AM 8/1/94 -0700, Andre Molyneux wrote:
>Auto Parts Club, several locations in the Bay Area. Rebuilt SVO/LSC
>calipers loaded with "no-name" semi-metallic pads can be yours for
>approximately $38 each with core exchange (no, they won't notice or
>care that the calipers you're sending back are a bit different than
>the ones you bought). There's a membership fee of $10 per year (otherwise
>you'll have to pay an additional 10% over the marked prices).
Wow.. I just bought a rebuilt set for $13 each without pads. And with steel
pistons. Raybestos pads can be had for under $30 for the 'good' ones.
02 Aug 1994
Bob Pitas
Andre Molyneux:
>Until and unless we have someway to measure the airflow into the system,
>or can show repeatable measureable increases in trap speeds just by
>removal of the headlight, we should probably just let this subject drop
>as we're all just spouting opinions. Hmmm, maybe if we could come up
>with a way to record MAF sensor readings over time...
When I was playing around with Ram-Dirt (sorry, Ram-Air) I hooked a 1/8" nylon
tube into the air-cleaner ('85) and ran it into the passenger compartment. I
spent a little time sealing the various air-leaks in the air-cleaner to try
and make it fairly airtight, and then took it up on the highway to check for
any sort of positive pressure. At speed I would get a fairly strong flow of
cold air out of the tube, which to me meant that at the very least I was
getting more cold air to the motor. Realize that when I say fairly strong I
mean that I could aim the end of the tube at my hand and feel the flow 4" away
from the opening. When I later put a vacuum/boost gauge on the nylon line, and
hooked it into the manifold instead of the aircleaner, I could see the vacuum
gauge go from 22 vacuum to 0 when I romped on it at low speeds, and then it
would start vibrating between 0 and 1.5psi boost above around 60mph.
As to where to put the intake for Ram-air, I would say that the two highest
pressure areas on the front of the car are probably the base of the windshield
and right under the chin-spoiler, where the air-dam is. Under the air-damn you
pick up all types of leaves, sticks, grass and small rodents, while at the
base of the windshield you're limited to getting tons of dust and pollen
shoved into your air-filter. Thing is you usually have to cut up your firewall
to get the air from the base of the windshield, and the firewall is already an
overstressed structural support... Still, if you notice how much more air
your heater/AC pushes at highway speeds (when it's not on Max of course) then
you have some idea of how much pressure is there to be tapped into!
04 Aug 1994
[email protected]
mustangs mailing list
On Aug 4, Dan Malek wrote:
> Ooohhhhh....Just throw that book away! If you want to do EEC-IV diagnostics
> just ante up the 100 bucks for the proper Ford manual. There is no
> way Skod or anyone else can possibly post all of the diagnostic tests
> outlined there. What is worse is that the steps you listed are not complete,
> vary among the model years, and don't tell you what to do if you find
> an error code.......
Well, don't take Dan _too_ seriously. The book is very useful, if you use it
with the understanding that it doesn't (and _can't_) cover everything, which
the author says right in the preface. There is much useful stuff in there to
be learned, and then when you want to get serious, you get the proper Ford
manual.
That's also the reason that I left out the wiggle and actuator tests in my
selftest writeup. In fact, in the first version I even omitted the cylinder
balance test, since it is so radically different for the speed-density cars,
and I didn't want to cause more confusion than I helped put down. The point of
my writeup was to serve as a hook, so to speak, to get people to _use_ the
diagnostic capability of the EEC-IV. But I left the rest of its capabilities,
which are enormous, as "an exercise for the interested student"...
After all, probably less than 40 of us on the list have probably ever even
dumped codes, and probably only 6 or 7 of us have ever used the wiggle test.
And there's even more, but probably not for the casual wrench.
10 Aug 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Aug 10, Dave Montgomery wrote:
> Headlamps on low beam and foglamps on (the only way they will come
> on) after ten or fifteen minutes of driving the whole headlamp
> system shuts off!...
> Every time I turned on the headlamps they shut back off.
Right. This is a well known problem that we've hashed through here often, and
needs to go in the FAQ. It usually affects early ('85-86) foglight cars, but
it lurks there for _anyone_ who tries to upgrade their headlights or fog
lights by installing higher wattage lamps, or more lamps, or whatnot.
The headlight switch itself includes a built-in 20A thermal circuit breaker
that will open in case of overcurrent to protect the wiring, and then close
again at some later time when it cools sufficiently. Of course, if it chooses
to do open when you're at speed on a foggy night, it may protect the wiring
very well, right up until the car hits the tree that you didn't see when the
lights went out. (;-)
The breaker was sized to handle the headlights all right, but not necessarily
the headlights _and_ the foglights. Later cars have (slightly) revised
harnesses and breakers, so this is less common. But you can still make it
happen by upsizing the loads, or by futzing with the logic so that the high
beams and fogs can both come on at once, or whatnot.
If you haven't done a headlamp upgrade and your breaker is dropping out on
high-beams-only, then it sounds like there might be a harness fault. Or
perhaps more likely, your headlight switch breaker has decided to get
paranoid. I'd pop the lamp connectors and measure the hot lead resistance to
ground to see if you might have some harness fault that's swallowing some
current. If everything's healthy in the harness, then I'd look into replacing
the headlight switch with a later version. Thermal breakers aren't the most
incredibly reliable things, and premature opening is not unheard of.
The solution in the case of uprated lamps is to use a relay to switch a
separately fused (and properly sized) hot to the fog lamps, or to the
headlights themselves if you've upgraded the wattage on the lamps. The
existing harness is very convenient to use to drive the relay, and it is
adequate to do that. It is quite marginal in its current ratings, and will
safely supply enough current to run the stock lamps, period. Ford didn't
design it to run those 150watt Hella high beams...
11 Aug 1994
Charles Copeland
>> I can feel in the seat of my pants the difference between 10 degrees and
>> 13 degrees. I have a cockpit adjustable timing box makes it easy to
>> change back and forth to compare.
>
> just out of curiosity, who makes these adjustable timing boxes?
Several people had an interest in this, so responding to all using the list.
Jacobs makes several types of this gizmo. The one I have has 3 knobs and is
call the "Turbo Timer" and cost $200 on sale. It does about five things:
1) First knob sets initial timing from 0-16 degrees. (the range is movable to
anything you want. I set mine 2-18 so 10 is middle of dial)
2) Second knob sets secondary timing with 0-16 delta degrees. This setting is
subtracted from the intial timing setting when a input wire is shorted to
ground. So if you intial is set to 13 and secondary is set to 3, when wire is
shorted you get 10 degrees. Its useful for turbos, superchargers, and nitrous.
You could even wire in a micro switch in the shifter to trigger this in 3 or
4th gear when engine is under heavy load (aka pinging).
3) Third knob sets the "ramdom no fire" rev limiter. It kinda sucks since
there the calibration is done by "hit and miss". Set it and test it...
4) Third knob also sets shift indicator light which lags the limiter by
500rpm. The shift indicator light is pretty useless because its to small to
see.
5)Also this box is supposed to boost the spark, I can't tell though.
There is another cheaper box with just two knobs (no secondary timing adjust),
but don't know its cost.
Much bashing has occured here to Jacobs for their coil packages, and rightly
so. However I've been very satisfied with this product. Its well designed, in
a really slick package, and works as advertised with my 8psi paxton setup for
the last couple of years. (Their HP claims on this product are, as always,
exagerated).
If I were to run nitrous, I wouldn't hesitate to by their "mastermind" box.
Its in the same slick package, and could be a life saver.
Other people makes these things. MSD among others.
18 Aug 1994
[email protected] (Chris Herzog)
mustangs%[email protected]
> > >Avoid sucking a bubble at the MC like the plague, folks, it is no fun at
> First of all, if you've got the stock '87+ 21mm fast-fill (drum brake)
> MC, seriously consider throwing it on the trash heap if you suck a bubble
> and have plans for rear disks.
Oh, ain't that bad...
> The basic idea is to run fluid thru
> the MC in a continuous loop, allowing air to be bled out as the fluid runs
> thru. Problem is, with the stupid plastic reservior, you can't really get
> loops of brake line that go from the outlet ports and back up to the
> reservoir.
There's actually nothing "magic" about running the lines back into the
reservior for bleedin a MC. The whole deal with that started with the older
open style MC's because they just provided a handy, easily accessed fluid
holder in the form of their reserviors. All the fluid does is stop the MC
from sucking air on the return stroke because the end of the lines are under
fluid.
I've bled the plastic-style MCs several times with lines from both circuits
running into a small container of brake fluid. If you keep filling the MC
with fresh fluid, you could even argue it gets a better "bleed" because the
air is ending up somewhere else and you're not re-aerating the fluid you're
using to bleed with (you don't run lines from your bleeder screws back into
the MC and that works OK).
22 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
A friend of mine runs an ITGT Mustang at Waterford Hills Roadcourse. He is
running very strong this year and finished third in points.
This past weekend was his last race of the season. He runs the bolt in
Grigg's panhard and torque arm. After the second race of the weekend, there
was some smoke coming from the left rear corner of the car.
The source of the problem turned out to be a panhard failure. This allowed
the left tire to rub on the inner fender in right hand turns.
The truss rod that supports the main section (that clamps to the axle) pushed
through/pulled out of the main section.
The main section did move on the axle tube and the fastener torque had backed
off. This is a chicken and egg sort of problem - it isn't clear whether the
torque backed off leading to the failure, or if the failure caused the torque
to back off. This design can't live if you don't maintain the proper clamp
load.
This Griggs design is pretty good, but definitely not ideal. I would have
used four (rather than two) bolts to clamp to the axle tube. I think that
using only one on each side of the clamp is just plain dumb. The truss rod
was only welded to one side of the main section. Also a dumb shortcut. I
would have extended the truss rod completely through the main section and
welded it to each wall.
22 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Borys Senyk)
[email protected]
>highly-stressed chunk of metal. It is a very tall order to resist
>those kinds of forces with hardware that simply clamps to the axle
>tube, and picks up three of the rear cover bolts. However, having said
>that, I'd still like to point out that the Griggs design is the only
>off-the-shelf design that has _any_ choice of living in those
>full-race, sticky-tired conditions. It still needs some help for truly
>over-the-top use, though.
actually it's only 2 3/8" bolts. after R/R'ing mine when i changed axles a
week ago, i became even more resolved to make a similiar upgrade to Scott's.
aside from the strength issue, partial disassembly of the panhard hardware to
remove the rear cover is a pain.
20 Sep 1994
Dan Malek
Clifton Koch
> Another thing to mention about the convertible mounts is they stiffen the
>chassis. That's the main reason they're different on the convertible. It mak
es
>the engine block a part of the chassis, rather than just sitting on it. It wa
s
>a noticable difference on my car, and I didn't notice any change in NVH (noise
,
>vibration, harshness).
One interesting point about this. I spent a lot (too much :-) time at Rick
Menard's Mustang yard. He will never buy a wrecked convertible for parts that
has been hit hard from the front. Almost all of them have a destroyed engine
block because the motor mounts do not break away like the "softer" ones on the
other models. They just peel the block open as the engine shifts in the
chassis. So, you are right, the engine really becomes a structural member of
the car.
15 Sep 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> I'm having a problem with escessive brake pedal travel on an '82
> Mustang GT. The brake pedal moves about 3 inches before the brakes
> begin to take effect. Lately I've come to suspect that the rear brakes
> aren't working at all - it takes forever to stop the car in the rain.
Chances are very good that, in a car of that age, the rear brakes are quite
worn, and the automatic adjuster mechanism may well have packed it in. The '82
cars are too early to have a fast-fill master cylinder, so any wear on the
rear shoes that isn't compensated for by the adjuster will immediately show up
as a long pedal. Assuming that the system is full of fluid, and that all the
lines and seals are intact and free of leaks, that's probably your problem.
Simple enough. While you have the shoes out to replace them (assuming that
you need to), make sure you disassemble and clean the adjuster, which is
probably well and truly gummed up with brake dust and cruft. Check the axle
seals while you're in there, as well. Any leakage requires immediate
replacement, since gear oil and rear shoes don't mix.
Now, having said that, I'd like to strongly advise you to take the time to
make a grand tour of the whole system and check its health, while you're
thinking about it. With a 12-13 year old car, it's quite likely that the
rubber/fabric flexible brake lines need help. They harden and crack over the
years, and your pedal problem could be a flex line with an aneurysm as well.
In any case, look all three flex lines over, and if the jacket shows signs of
age cracking, replace it. Don't forget the short hop from the tub to the
center section of the rear axle!
Since you'll be down there anyway, this is also an excellent time to flush the
braking system with clean, dry fluid. If the brakes still have their original
factory fill of fluid in them, it will probably be deep chocolate brown, and
have rust particles in it from the slow attack of moisture that is adsorbed
into the fluid. Suck the fluid out of the MC, leaving only a shallow puddle in
the bottom covering the refill ports, and refill the reservoir with clean, dry
DOT3 fluid of your choice (Castrol LMA or Ford Heavy-Duty fluid are both very
good for the street), and then give the braking system a thorough flush. Bleed
each corner until you get a flow of uncontaminated, bubble-free, clean fluid.
This will probably require you to run about a quart of fluid through the
system in total. Hey- the stuff is _clear_, when it's new. This part is easy,
an
...
rec.autos.tech
[email protected] ( Steve Sadler )
9 Sep 1994
Joe Mcgraw ([email protected]) wrote:
: Please help settle the following argument. I have a 1994 Mustang GT with 302
: HO engine and my son is driving a 1984 T-bird with a 302 fuel injected (not
: turbo) engine. Which engine has (had?) the most Horsepower and which car was
: rated at 0-60 in the shortest period? Given that the T-bird is well past its
: prime and not re-built, we would be wasting our time testing in the most
: obvious way. Does anyone have the original specs on the 1984 T-bird 302 or know
: if they are available on the internet?
I'm not a T-Bird fan, so I can't help you there, but let me tell you about the
mustang (I'll include 1984 info for a fair comparison. No way did the 1984 t-
bird 302 put out more power than the 1984 mustang engine.)
1980 - Mustang, destroked to 255 cubic inches. 137 horsepower.
1981 - Mustang had a 302 (2 bbl carb, single exhaust), 156 HP.
1982 - Same as 81 except first year of roller cam. No HP change.
1983 - Mustang had a 302, 175 hp
1984 - Same as 83.
1985 - Mustang had a 302, 4bbl, dual exhaust. 205 HP
(CA and Automatic models had single point FI)
1986 - Smog problems, put on Ford Truck head, 175 HP. Single point FI.
1987 - Went to EFI, headers, new cam profile, new head design. 225 HP
(CA models had a Mass Airflow sensor in 87, rest did not.)
1988 - Very minor cylinder head mods, all cars get Mass Airflow Sensor
(to replace Speed Density sensor.), no HP change
1989 - No changes
1990 - No changes
1991 - No engine changes, significant aerodynamic improvements. New rims,
six new colors offered.
1992 - No changes
1993 - SAE changed the horsepower rating requirements - it used to be that you
could hand-build an engine for testing, in 93 the engines had to be randomly
chosen enginess off the production line. Very minor cam change (-2 degrees,
intake lobe), 205 HP.
1994 - Changed intake module and EFI computer, plus totally new frame/body.
215 HP. No real performance gain due to added weight. Serious improvement in
the corners.
The 84 mustang didn't have fuel injection, so the 84-tbird probably didn't
either. If it did, it was a single-port, Speed density driven system that
won't hold a candle to the 88 and later system.
One more note - My father and his wife bought matching 88 mustangs, except
hers was an automatic and his a 5-speed. There is an EXTREME difference
between the straight line accelleration in these two cars. If you have a
stick in your 94 mustang, I can't see how your son thinks his T-bird has a
chance.
Your 94 (stick) should do 0-60 in about 7 seconds flat (maybe in the sixes
with a lot of abuse on the clutch between gears), the auto (i'm guessing )
should do it in about 8.5 - 9 seconds. The T-Bird? Probably around 9.5 to
10.5 if it's an auto, and 8.5 - 9.5 if it's a stick.
[email protected] (David Liller)
rec.autos.tech
9 Sep 1994
1984 Mustang GT w/ 302 HO CFI (speed density) --> 165 HP
1984 Mustang GT w/ 302 HO 4V --> 175 HP
1984 w/ 302 (non HO) CFI (speed density) --> 145 HP
Needless to say the T-Bird will likely be somewhat slower than the mustangs
ET based on weight.
I can't see the T-Bird holding a candle to your 94 mustang from a standing
start to 60mph. Your 94 will probably get you to 60 in about 7 seconds as
mentioned above without too much abuse and I can't see the thunderbird doing
any better than 9 seconds. My 84 mustang doesn't do any better than 8.5 with
the automatic (3.27 trac-lok) and factory speed density CFI unit in place.
The new 302's just breath a great deal better than they used to.
SEFI is also far better for fuel control and performance than CFI units used
to be.
19 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Clifton Koch)
fordnatics
> Also, the mount-to-block bolts are in there with
> *red* loctite, so be prepared to exert some torque. A breaker bar is a
> must...
I didn't have any problems getting those bolts out, it was the motor mount to
frame nuts that gave me fits.
> A word of caution if you've got a strut tower brace: if you go w/the
> convertible mounts, be prepared to have the motor sit "up" in the engine
> bay compared to where it was before. Before jacking the motor up, I
> removed the distributor and oil caps to avoid inadvertent contact w/ my
> Maier bar. Boy, was I bummed when I was all done and couldn't get either
> the oil or distributor caps back on because there's now less clearance.
> Loosening my Maier bar and reassembling everything is the short-term
> solution...
Oh ho! I was curious about that. I didn't notice it at the time I made the
change, but when I put in my supercharger, I had some hood clearance problems.
Another thing to mention about the convertible mounts is they stiffen the
chassis. That's the main reason they're different on the convertible. It
makes the engine block a part of the chassis, rather than just sitting on it.
It was a noticable difference on my car, and I didn't notice any change in NVH
(noise, vibration, harshness).
19 Sep 1994
[email protected]
> I've also come to the conclusion that I need more TRACTION!
> I've heard that I can disconnect the
> front sway bar. Is this safe for daily driveing or should I only do this
> at the track?
I'd like to find the yoyo that originally started this urban myth, and teach
him a few things with a torque wrench and a tube of Aqualube. Disconnecting
the front antiroll bar will have a completely negligible effect on fore/aft
weight transfer under acceleration, assuming that your antiroll bar bushings
are anything other than frozen solid. This ranks right up there with loosening
the lower control arm mount bolts to let the arms "swing more freely" as a bad
idea.
If you're gonna play with the front bar, and all you ever do with the car is
straightline stuff, then just _remove_ the damned thing. There's 20lb off the
nose of the car, right away. Without a front bar, and with stock springs, the
car will handle like Dolly Parton in the twisty bits, which is to say that
you'll get body roll down to the bump stops, and the handling will be
nightmarish. But there are enough folks out there driving around with skinnies
on the front and meats on the rears that I guess that it's a common tradeoff.
I have no real knowledge of straightline suspension setups that work, so I
can't help much more. There are a number of kits out there that let you drop
the rear pickup point on the lower control arms, which would get you more
bite. But they'll also get you roll oversteer, and perhaps bind in cornering
(unless they use spherical bearings). That'd probably be the next place to
look, though, if you can tolerate the handling change.
20 Sep 1994
Mike Banks <[email protected]>
Subject: One final item...CHIPS Pursuit test
Dave Williams
***NEW AND IMPROVED!!!***
PLEASE NOTE: A previous posting of this info was an abbreviated E-mail reply
of mine that found its way to the library files. In response to 160+ uploads,
here is a much more detailed version with lots of juicy tech tidbits.
These are my original road test results and *complete* specification charts
for the 1988 Police Pursuit Mustang that I did as Engineering Editor at Car
Craft Magazine. Testing was performed at a variety of locations, including the
CHP's EVOC (Emergency Vehicle Operations Course) at their Academy in
Sacramento. Read the story in Car Craft for more personal observations and
insights (sorry, don't remember exact issue date and my back issues here in
Reseda are buried in earthquake rubble). Contemporary baseline performance
numbers (CHP Mustangs used stock GT engines) can be used by you animals
putting blowers on these things now. I may be a vintage muscle Mopar
enthusiast, but I sure do love Fox-Platform Mustangs! Comments and Q's
welcome....
--Dev Anand/CA (72223,3611)
1988 Ford Mustang Police Pursuit
SPECIFICATIONS
1988 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL FORD MUSTANG
LX 5.0
CHP Fleet Purchase Price..............$11,202
PERFORMANCE
(Performance data collected from National Institute of Justice Patrol Vehicle
Testing, California Highway Patrol Academy, and Car Craft Magazine)
ACCELERATION (sec.)
Quarter Mile.................. 15.30@ 94.0mph
0-30mph...................................2.6
0-40mph...................................3.8
0-50mph...................................5.0
0-60mph...................................6.5
0-100mph.................................19.2
Top Speed(observed)....................138mph
BRAKING (ft.)
60-0 mph..................................158
Deceleration rate (Ft/Sec2).............25.45
ENGINE
Type.....Ford built 90-degree V-8, cast iron
block and heads, five main bearings
Bore and stroke,in..................4.00x3.00
Displacement...............302 cid, 5.0liters
Compression ratio.........................9.2
Rated Horsepower................225 @ 4200rpm
Rated Torque,ft./lbs............300 @ 3200rpm
Valvetrain.......Pushrod, hyd. roller lifters
Exhaust i.d....... Steel tubing headers, (2)
2.00in. intermediate, (2) reverse flow
mufflers, (2) 2.00 tailpipes
Fuel Metering...........Naturally aspirated,
Electronic Port Fuel Injection, tuned
runners
Recommended fuel ((R+M)/2)..........87 Octane
Unleaded
Total dressed engine mass(lbs.).......536.9
CHASSIS
Front suspension......Gas Pressurized Hybrid
MacPherson Strut w/springs mounted on Lower
Control Arms,
Spring rate at wheel(lb./in)...variable, 81-
101
Anti-roll bar dia.(in.)..................1.3
Rear suspension...Four-link, Gas Pressurized
Hybrid MacPherson strut w/springs mounted
on Lower Control Arms, Freon Bag Hyd.
Horizontal Axle Dampers
Spring rate at wheel(lb./in.)..Variable 102-
153
Anti-roll bar dia.(in.).................0.79
Front brakes.........10.8" vented disc, semi-
metallic linings
Rear Brakes........9.0" Drum, organic linings
Assist.......Vacuum, 6-in. tandem diaphragm
Anti-lock device type...................None
Steering......Rack and Pinion w/engine driven
hydrualic assist
Gear ratio.15.0:1 on center, 13.0:1 at stops
Wheel turns, stop to stop................2.2
TRANSMISSION
Type..........Borg-Warner T-5 5-speed manual
transaxle
Clutch or TC type...Cable w/Belleville spring
Diameter(in.)...........................8.47
Total Spring Load(lbs.).................1877
Gear ratios
1st.....................................3.35
2nd.....................................1.93
3rd.....................................1.29
4th.....................................1.00
5th.....................................0.68
Reverse.................................3.15
Weight(lbs.)...............................77
FINAL DRIVE
Type........Rear wheel Hotchkiss, Plate-type
limited slip differential
Final drive ratio.......................3.08
TIRES AND WHEELS
Wheel type and size(in.)..Cast Aluminum, 15x7
Offset...........................(F&R)0.88in
Tire type and brand........Goodyear Eagle VR
Gatorback
Size F/R.........................P225/60VR16
Test pressure F/R,psi..................35/35
DIMENSIONS
Wheelbase,in............................100.5
Length,in...............................179.6
Width,in.................................69.1
Track,f/r,in........................56.6/57.0
Minimum ground clearance(in.).............4.5
Location..............Convertor Grass Shield
Fuel Capacity,gal........................15.5
Oil capacity, less filter(qt.)..............4
Curb Weight (lbs.).......................3360
Drag coefficient (Cd).................... .38
Frontal Area(sq.ft.).....................21.4
MUSTANG POLICE PACKAGE EQUIPMENT
Available in two door sedan bodystyle only, no hatchback.
*Additional air deflector under radiator
*Inside electric trunk lid release relocated
from glove box to right side of steering
column
*Metal disc brake dust shields in lieu of
plastic
*Engine oil cooler
*Additional transmission oil cooler for cars
with A/T
*Reinforced front floorpan
*Single key locking system
*Underhood sound absorber deleted (for
additional cooling)
*Full size spare wheel/tire (no spacesaver)
*Certified 140 mph speedometer
*Cast aluminum wheels painted black
19 Aug 1994
Troy Wecker
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
>>Now, if you've changed to the 1" or 1.125" bore master cylinder that
>>comes with any of the disk kits, or you have a car like a '93 Cobra
>>or a '94 that _came_ with 4-wheel disks, you have a conventional,
>>non-fast-fill MC.
I looked in the '93 Service Manual and there is nothing about the '93 Cobra
having a different MC. The section on the MC is very sparse. It mentions fast
fill once but doesn't explain it (thanks Scott). The cut-away view labels the
bores as primary and secondary. The Specifications book lists the secondary
bore sizes only with all Mustangs being the same. There are 2 MC bleeding
procedures listed. Both are on car, one is a standard bleed starting with the
secondary and then primary ports, the other is a pressure bleed with the
Rotunda Bladder System set at 30psi.
Is there a way to tell physically if it's a fast fill MC? It seems that they
could have used the fast fill system but it would be a waste since the rear
disks would react as fast as the fronts. My car has an external proportioning
valve just below the MC. Perhaps the primary setting is different than a GT.
Anybody know??
02 Sep 1994
[email protected]
> Looking for a strut tower brace for my 85GT. Need one that will
> clear the stock dual-snorkel air cleaner set up. Would prefer a type
> that bolts to the tower and not the top of the strut, has a backer panel
> for the firewall, and would work with after market caster/camber
> plates, but given these things don't grow on trees I won't be picky.
I'll do one bit of clutter, since this is a useful question. Turns out the
very best strut tower braces are made by Maier Racing in Hayward, right in
your back yard. They have variations for injected and carbureted cars that are
nicely reinforced both at the firewall and at the strut tower tops, acommodate
all of the various camber/caster plates, and are very nice indeed. IMHO, they
are the vendor of choice for this useful item.
And it's very trick to drive over and hang out in their shop for a while, and
look at the toys. Maier also does a full range of fiberglass hoods and panels,
roll bars and custom fabrication, and if you just _gotta_ have it, Bill's son
(Chris, I think) will kick out any body panels you like in carbon fiber. Last
time I was there, I played with a carbon fiber/foam core hood for a late model
that weighed (gulp) three pounds. Complete. Didn't think to ask the price. Or
their 5-ounce carbon-fiber FE valve covers...
Maier Racing. (510) 581-7600.
06 Sep 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> Currently I'm using Steeda 650/850 variable rate springs. and stock
> shocks and bushings (at the time I didn't want to dump alot of money
> into it). Well after 78,000 miles, they shocks are starting to soften
> more than I like.
The stock struts are a bit marginal, and are hard pressed to control the stock
425/530lb progressive springs for as long as 20,000 miles. With your higher-
rate springs and very worn shocks, I have little doubt that the ride is
hideously underdamped, and it probably a long way from being ideal.
I don't believe that the Monroes have much chance of doing what you'd like.
They would certainly be a huge improvement over the sacked-out stockers, but I
think you'd do better with the Konis, or perhaps the Tokico adjustables. I've
sometimes thought that a nice setup for the street might be the Konis in the
front and the Tokicos in the rear (since the Tokico rears are adjustable
without unbolting the lower mount), but that's arguably turd-polishing.
The Koni red street shocks and struts can be set up to be very firm for cone
dodging (or mountain road flogging), and then softened up for long-distance
highway cruising. This range of adjustability is very useful, believe me.
> And I was wondering if I should get urethane bushings, and which ones
> (pieces & company). I was looking for the sway bar, and end links for right
> now. Are these easy to change without screwing up my alignment?
The sway bar bushings are very easy, and do not influence the alignment
settings. You really don't need to change the end link bushings, as your '91
already has urethanes there. Energy Suspension bushings are widely available
through mail order, Super Shops, and what have you. Check the back of any
Mustang magazine for mailorder sources. And do yourself a favor and get a tube
of Aqualube brand polyurethane-based boat trailer wheel bearing grease from
your local boat store. It is the only grease that has been shown to
consistently control squeaking from the urethane bushings.
08 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Gary Krasche)
[email protected]
Someone asked why the Spout connector had to be disconnected when the ignition
timing is set.
There are better sources than me for this info, but I'll give it a try
Ignition timing refers to the relationship between the piston at the top of
its compression stroke and the exact time that the spark (i.e., small bolt of
lightning) appears at the spark plug. The spark, ignites the fuel/air mixture
in the cylinder, a little explosion occurs, and the piston is forced down
during the power stroke.
The exact time of that spark is very important and it needs to be changed for
different engine speeds and engine load. In computer controlled engines, the
computer does most of that work. The computer basicly, takes input pulses it
gets from the distibutor, adds or subtracts a little bit of time (per its pre-
programmed software) and then sends out ignition pulses to the spark plugs.
The input pulses come from the distributor. If the body of the distributor is
rotated, the computer won't know the difference and the timing of the spark
pulse (the end product of this whole routine) relative to the crankshaft and
piston position can be changed. Advanced or Retarted relative to piston top-
dead-center position.
By disconnecting the Spout connector (this is how I picture it) the computer
is taken out of the ignition timing process. The only thing left to determine
ignition timing is the position of the distributor on the engine block.
So, with the Spout connector disconnected, we take a timing light and discover
what the timing coming from the distributor looks like. If we want to change
that timing, we can do so by rotating the distributor slightly. Let's assume
we do so and advance the timing by 2 degress.
When the Spout connector is re-connected, the computer does its thing again
with ignition timing just as it had before. EXCEPT ... the input pulses it
gets from the distributor are now at a slightly different crankshaft/piston
position. So now, the computer thinks it is sending out ignition pulses at ...
say 20 degrees BTDC, but its really sending the pulses at 22 degrees BTDC.
(Assuming we advanced the distributor timing by 2 degrees).
This ended up a lot longer and took a lot longer than I expected. Some of it
is based on my interpretation of how an engine works, and may not be
absolutely correct. Your mileage may vary. Hope this has been helpful.
08 Sep 1994
Michael Herrmann <[email protected]>
mustangs%[email protected]
If you all want to see the computer in action, leave the spout connector on and
see what happens.
We left the spout connector plugged in and tried to advance the timing on my
mustang, just to see what happens. We started the timing light and turned the
distributor with the connector still plugged in...you could see the timing
increase, but it only stayed that way for a second. The computer automatically
adjusted it back to the stock setting. Pretty neat. Unplug it, and you can set
it wherever you want (within reason, of course). When you plug the connector
back in, the computer uses the new setting as its "baseline".
15 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Jay Fletcher)
This sounds alot like the notorious EGR position sensor (EVP) intermittant
failure common on so many late model Mustangs. If you run the EEC diagnostics
(described in the Probst book and skod's "Building the Perfect Pony") you
will most likely find an error code "31". The consensus of many Mustang's
Listers is that the windings of the EVP sensor get dirty in th the normal
operating range and cause a discontinuous sensor output, which the computer
then flags as an "out of range" measurement.
This problem should be covered under the ESP, and probably under the
emissions warranty as well. However, you will have a hell of a time getting
the dealer to fix an intermittant problem. I tried several times to have
my EVP sensor replace by the dealer, and finally just did it myself. It
only cost me $22, and I have the satisfaction of knowing it was done right.
The thing to do is run the EEC self-tests and see which codes come up.
15 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Walt Boeninger)
[email protected]
I have access to Fords own Corporate Parts Database here at work
Looking up the oil filter for the '94 Cobra took me exactly 45 SECONDS I
cannot believe a Ford dealer cannot do as good. Unless they are not using the
CPD, in which case they ought to move into the 20th century.
The answer from Ford's own tool is as follows:
FL-300 or p/n D4ZZ-6731-B
16 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
Did you ever get an answer? I didn't see one on the list.
The factory "Engine/Emissions Diagnosis" or "H" manual comes from Helm, Inc.,
(800) 782-4356. It covers all models of a particular year and is quite
pricey, over $100 for recent years if memory serves. However, it is *the*
authoritative source of EEC-IV info for your car.
A good substitute for most purposes is much more reasonably priced: "How to
Understand, Service, and Modify Ford Fuel Injection and Electronic Engine
Control", by Charles O. Probst, published by Robert Bentley of Cambridge, MA,
USA, ISBN 0-8376-0301-3. It is available from a number of sources, including
the publisher, Ford Motorsports dealers, and Classic Motorbooks at (800) 826-
6600. For about $30, you get a complete overview of the sensors, actuators,
and control algorithms used by the EEC-IV, step-by-step diagnostic procedures,
wiring diagrams, plus tips on hot-rodding EEC-IV cars. It's a good
introductory text for people familiar with engines who don't yet understand
computer controls.
16 Sep 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> The car seems to have more hp. It is a seat of the pants
> type feeling. No hard figures. (Anyone have hard figures?)
We've discussed this before, and the concensus is that the HP gains under WOT
conditions are pretty trivial. But- and this is a *big* but-the seat of the
pants feel difference is quite nontrivial, especially at small throttle
settings.
When I did my underdrives and my electric fan, I was *astounded* at the
difference in throttle response and part-throttle acceleration that I got. It
was very noticeable, and a very pleasing effect. This is because in part-
throttle acceleration, the rotational inertia and general drag of the
accessories is a major factor influencing the speed at which the revs build.
In short, for small torque outputs, spinning up the accessories consumes a
sizeable fraction of the torque output, and reducing that drag has a
disproportionately large [email protected]
> that my front struts are worn/on their way out.
> how can you tell when they finally go.. what happens?
> is it going to ruin things?
No, but the handling will deteriorate over time. Turn-in will become "floaty",
the car might oscillate on for a while after taking a bump, and in general the
road "feel" will become more and more vague. Advanced cases are where the car
will bounce up and down for 2 or 3 cycles after you push down and release on a
bumper, but the handling will be _hopeless_ long before that.
> also: what should i replace them with? should i stay stock, or
> upgrade or what?
I would not recommend staying stock. The OEM parts are barely able to hold
their own for 20k miles of ordinary street driving, and "spirited" driving
will overwhelm them early on. I'm a fan of buying _good_ aftermarket parts.
Either the Koni or the Tokico adjustable will let you do a fair amount of
tuning of the suspension to the type of driving you intend to do. The
Bilstein, KYB, and Monroes have also been mentioned as cost-effective non-
adjustable parts. Shop around, and see what you're comfortable with for price,
but definitely don't go back to OEM.
I personally an a Koni guy, but the other brands have impassioned advocates in
this group as well. The Konis have a good lifetime warranty, and I have had
occasion to use it. Other vendors may also support their product well.
The last thing I'd say is that I'd avoid chain-store "house-label" shocks and
struts like the plague. Please don't fall into the trap of taking the car to a
Midas, or a Sears, or whatever because they are "running a special" on shocks
and struts. The house-label parts tend to be little better (and in some cases
even _worse_) than the OEM parts.
19 Sep 1994
"Brian St. Denis"
[email protected]
> Forgot to mention in my last post that I've been unable to eliminate
> some annoying squeaks from the rear suspension of my car (between this
> and the brake noise they'll hear me coming a mile away). I first started
> getting squeaks from the rear suspension after an open-track event.
> Re-torquing all the suspension mount points made it go away, but it
> came back again after the next event.
The exact same thing has happened to me and my buddy. We all know it has to
do with the upper control arms. The first step is to re-torque the bolts. I
have tried tightening to spec and tightening to the most I can get with an
extra long cheater bar. Sometimes it quiets the squeak down until the next
event, sometimes only for a few days, sometimes not at all.
One time before, I replaced my upper control arms with the Motorsport heavy
duty ones and that fixed the squeak for an event or two. Interestingly, the
arms I removed did not look worn (the bushings looked fine) but they were
still squeaking.
Finally, some of you may remember what became of my control arms on my
previous car after 10 or so events. As I reported earlier, the bushing on the
diff end of the arm had been pulled out of the arm and a donut of the arm had
been pulled inside the bushing sleeve. Skod found another Mustang with this
similar wear pattern. When I finally removed these ruined arms from my car, I
noticed that the mount on the belly pan of the car, which has two sides and
holds the outside of the arm, had been bent so it "aimed" in a direction that
did not put the other end of the arm on the differential mounting location.
I'm thinking that the squeaks that some of us hear, when the bushings in our
arms are okey-dokey, could be coming from a bent mounting bracket. The only
way to check is to remove the bolt that holds the arm to the diff, then loosen
the bolt holding the arm to the body, then lift the arm off the diff. If the
bracket is bent, it will spring the arm (I forget which way) and it will be a
pain in the butt to get back over the diff. Since my test car was stolen, I
haven't had an opportunity to test this out as being the reason for the
squeak, but that is my current guesstimate as to the source of the anoying
squeak.
19 Sep 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> Over the weekend I installed new pads all around in my '92 for a
> track event coming up this next weekend. At the rears (SSB rear disk
> conversion) I installed carbon-kevlar pads. These pads didn't have
> anti-rattle springs installed, and being short on time I didn't get
> around to finding a way to put some on. I expected some noise, but
> not as much as I got.
> I've got to put the car up in the air again to
> flush the brakes later this week, so is there anything I should look for,
> or is this the part of the joy of using C-K pads?
No, it definitely is not. They should be completely quiet when you're off the
pedal, and they should only make you deaf when you use them. If they are
rattling around loose in there, they'll chatter against the rotors, and it
will be hellaciously noisy, not to mention shortening the pad life
dramatically.
You need all three of the antirattle springs per pad for the T-bird Turbo
setup to work. Two of the three are the spring steel end abutment shims, which
you should have. The third is the spring wire radial spring that attaches to
the boss on the outer ecge of the backing plate. All three must be in place.
Salvage some of the radial sptings from another set of pads (by drilling out
the rivets), and attach them to the backing plate using #10-32 screws,
washers, and a pair of nuts jammed together(very important- these will get too
hot for eithe Nylock nuts or Loctite, and you don't want to lose them...). The
springs need to be free to move slightly with respect to the backing plate to
prevent binding.
If those springs aren't in place, the pads will jump around and chatter very
badly. The high coefficient of friction of the C-K material makes them much
more susceptible to chatter. As a final weapon you can try, get some of the
antiqsueal glue (like the CRC red stuff) and glue the pads to the piston and
caliper body. The glue will burn off in your first session, but at least
they'll be quiet until then...
19 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Marty Udisches)
[email protected]
> The motor mounts in my '89 LX 5.0 (79k miles) seem to be worn out, and I
> have decided to replace them. I think I am just going to use stock
> replacement parts, rather than metal mounts (any opinions on this?).
I just replaced mine over Labor Day. For the amount of effort it takes,
you might as well put something *better* in there...
> I've
> read in one of the Mustang mags how to do the procedure. Are there any
> things to watch out for or is it pretty straight forward?
Pretty much. Getting to the fasteners will take a multitude of different
extensions, u-joints, etc., so get as many handy as you can. If you've
got offset rack bushings w/the rack in the "up" position, you may need to
pull the rack forward to get the plumbing connections away from the driver's
side mount-to-k-frame nut. Getting the (dead) driver's side mount out
required having an assistant rock the motor left to right, to open up enough
clearance to pop it out. Also, the mount-to-block bolts are in there with
*red* loctite, so be prepared to exert some torque. A breaker bar is a must...
A word of caution if you've got a strut tower brace: if you go w/the
convertible mounts, be prepared to have the motor sit "up" in the engine
bay compared to where it was before. Before jacking the motor up, I
removed the distributor and oil caps to avoid inadvertent contact w/ my
Maier bar. Boy, was I bummed when I was all done and couldn't get either
the oil or distributor caps back on because there's now less clearance.
Loosening my Maier bar and reassembling everything is the short-term
solution...
> Where is the
> best place to buy new motor mounts, local dealer, mail order, and how much?
I got mine from a local Shelby Club-friendly dealer; ~$50 for the set.
E3ZZ-6038-D (left), -E (right) convertible motor mounts.
19 Sep 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> Finally, some of you may remember what became of my control arms on my
> previous car after 10 or so events. As I reported earlier, the
> bushing on the diff end of the arm had been pulled out of the arm and
> a donut of the arm had been pulled inside the bushing sleeve. When I
> finally removed these ruined arms from my car, I noticed that the
> mount on the belly pan of the car, which has two sides and holds the
> outside of the arm, had been bent so it "aimed" in a direction that
> did not put the other end of the arm on the differential mounting
> location.
This is a very important point. Squeaks that sound like metal-on-metal often
_are_ metal-on-metal, and in the case of the upper rear arms, this can lead to
trouble. The failure mode that Brian describes seems to be moderately common
on track cars that use the stock bushings in the center section. The rubber
bushing becomes debonded from the outer shell, which allows the arm (which is
a mild steel stamping) to come in contact with the bushing shell (which is
hardened steel). It's noisy, all right, but more importantly the bushing shell
acts as a dull hole saw and slowly chops a circle out of the arm, leading to
failure. Generally, folks who have this happen notice it as a sudden increase
in the noise (squeaks turn to squeaks and *clunks*), and the car goes very
loose.
The problem is that, if allowed to continue until arm failure, the resulting
sudden increase of the stresses can really put a fine kink in the upper arm's
chassis pickup point. The "springing" of the chassis side that Brian described
probably happened as a result of the arm failing and applying a side load to
the tub. In the worse case, this overload can pull the mounting point right
off the tub, leading to an extended meeting with Mr. Welder.
In the case of noise from the rear arms, especially that grunching sound that
indicates metal-on-metal, it is imperative to find it and fix it. Problem is,
with the car on jackstands and the suspension at full droop, parts that may be
contacting each other at under dynamic conditions may be miles apart
(especially in the upper arms, whose short lengths lead to major angulations
as the suspension moves). You have to look for metal filings or anything else
that might indicate that a bushing has given up and metal-to-metal contact is
occurring under load. If all the bushing mount bolts are properly torqued, and
no filings (indicating fretting wear and slippage) are found at the joints
between the bushing cores and the mount ears, then it has to be something
else. A good close look at the inside surfaces of the upper arms where they
connect to the center section bushings at the axle is very much in order.
19 Sep 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> I've had a growling noise that I though was a wheel bearing problem for
> about a month now on my '89 Mustang LX 5.0. Well, growling may be a
> little bit too severe, but it is low frequency.
> I'm affraid it could be differential bearings. I have the rear disk
> brake kit, which could allow side force to be exerted on the differential
> side gears (and bearings) under braking. This would explain the dependence
> on cornering as well.
I'd be more inclined to think it was a rear wheel bearing (outer axle
bearing), if it was speed dependent and brake torque dependent *only*, and not
engine torque dependent. If it were engine torque dependent, I'd say that it
was most likely a pinion bearing, given the Mustang's propensity for beating
them to death with the driveshaft. But if it's brake dependent, I'd think of
the outer bearing.
I'd also say that you have little to fear from the diff bearings themselves.
They are _tanks_, and they are hardly going to be affected by side loads from
the brakes (which are *trivial*, when compared to the cornering forces that
they see!).
You might have an unhappy ring and pinion, but the braking dependency makes me
think of outer axle bearings, first and foremost. *Definitely* check them out,
because ill health there leads to the formation of a massive stress-raiser
right in the portion of the axle that's the most heavily loaded, and with
fully reversed stresses in 2 dimensions, too. I'd bet a beer that that's it,
if it's in the rear end at all.
20 Sep 1994
"Brian St. Denis"
[email protected]
> 1. What should I look for in subframes, or what should I
> specifiy if I'm having some built?
If you are considering having SFCs built, try to find someone who already
has them on and look at theirs. This will give you an idea of what is
available. I purchased the GW units from the advice of the list and had them
installed and loved them. Then, later, I saw a car that had "other" SFCs
installed. The other ones made the GW units look like a work of art.
> 2. Is having them built a good idea, or should I fork over
> the bucks for some mail order ones?
It depends on the builder you have in mind. If you know guys who work on race
cars and fabricate major components, then SFCs are a minor add on for them.
An SSGT racer friend of mine (now A-Sedan) hooked me up with a guy who hand
builds roll cages, suspension parts, look-alike carbon-fiber body panels, etc.
I had him install the GW SFCs. He said he could have made some but he also
said that the GW SFCs looked real nice and he thought that they were good
pieces. I might consider asking this same guy to build my SFCs when I get to
that stage (on my current Mustang). If you don't have any contacts or any way
to get some, then I'd suggest buying the SFC and having them installed.
> 3. At some point I remember somebody talking about preloading
> the chasis when you are welding on the SF's. Is this a good idea?
Some will say that a car with normal or stock rigidity should not flex much
just sitting there so you can just slap them on. On the other hand, I
wouldn't want my car jacked by the front right and the left rear when the SFCs
were welded on.
My favorite feature of full-length-weld-on-SFCs is that you can put the jack
anywhere along the SFC and it lifts the entire side of the car off the ground.
Makes it very easy to do your work and you don't have to think about if your
jack point is going to dent the bottom of your car (or rocker box or
whatever).
21 Sep 1994
James Kurien
fordnatics
Here's something you might want to watch out for if you get these mounts.
On my car, a '79, they don't exactly fit. Each convertible mount has a stud
which goes through the mounting point on the K-member and a tab which goes
into a hole. The left and right mounts have the tabs in very different
locations I presume so you can't install them backwards.
The '79 k-member has symmetric mounting points, and neither the left or right
convertible mount will go in because the tabs and holes miss each other by an
inch or two. (Yes, I'm sure I don't just have them backwards :)
Strangely, the '79 mounts don't have any tabs at all, so I presume cutting the
tabs off the new mounts won't be a problem. It's either that or start
drilling holes in the K-member.
This isn't a big deal, but it would be a bummer if you didn't notice until you
were trying to figure out why your engine wouldn't go in.
21 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
I finally got the wheel problems sorted out for the Capri. To make a very
drawn out and nasty experience short, I have been trying to obtain a set of
16x12 race wheels for the car all Summer. My first order was placed just
before Memorial day and I had rather bad experiences with two vendors. The
third vendor, BBS, did things perfect and the wheels were built and shipped
the day after I ordered them.
First, a bit of history.. Last fall I broke a Summers race axle in my 9" rear
end. The axle failure was actually caused by a bearing failure. The rear end
in question was just fine for drag racing or for Solo II stuff (for 240
seconds/weekend), but could not take the abuse of road courses without
constant bearing replacement (we're talking each weekend at $75/set).
So I decided to bite the bullet in a Big way and deal with the situation. This
meant a full floater rear end and a new bolt pattern (and new wheels). At the
same time it made sense to upgrade the brakes.. Actually, that wasn't *all*
decided up front. As the wheel fiasco progressed, I found other things to do
while I waited.
I also went to spherical rod ends and coil overs for the rear suspension. The
new rear end brackets are setup for rod ends rather than standard Mustang
control arm bushings.
I went Big on the brakes. I'm running 13" rotors up front and 12" rotors in
the rear, with PBR calipers all around.
So on Friday Sept. 9, a month late (and two monthes since the order) the
wheels from the second vendor arrived. I had provided very clear brake
clearance requirements, but who reads documentation? The wheels didn't come
anywhere close to clearing my brakes.
I ended up getting some 17x8 wheels and very used GSCSs from the road race
team I crew for (we race a Cobra R in A Sedan) and headed out to a local Solo
II. The setup, both shock valving and spring rates, was setup for a car 8
inches wider. I knew it would be a handful on course. And it was.. But it
was a good shake-down.
The big revelation was how great a difference the brakes made. They are
absolutely amazing, even at low speeds. I knew they would make a big
difference coming down from high speeds, but they were a night and day
improvement even when coming down from 55 mph.
Last season I had a cockpit adjustable brake prop valve, new drums in the
rear, LSC calipers up front, the LSC MC and SS lines all around. I could lock
and modulate the brakes very well and with a twist of the knob have the rears
locking first. That's all you need, right? That is how I used to think. I
was wrong..
On Monday morning, I promptly called BBS (and ordered on Tues). My new wheels
would ship on Wednesday. I decided to just have them shipped ground - with my
wheel luck, any money spent on air freight would have surely resulted in rain
for the weekend, if not the rest of the season. I had a Solo II on Saturday,
rather than the usual Sunday. This left me with a shortage of time. How I
set the car up during the week was somewhat of a toss-up - gamble on the BBS's
arriving, or tune for the 17x8's? I ended up holding off on the camber (uh,
among other things!) until Friday night (the GSCSs want more than -3, the
slicks want around -1).
Amazingly enough, the wheels made it from Georgia to Michigan by Friday.
After some frantic scrambling, I picked the wheels up, dropped them off at my
house, checked the brake clearance, hauled the tires to the mounter and then
hauled the wheels (you can't fit 4 T/A wheels and tires in an Escort).
By about 1:30 AM most everything was ready to go with the exception of
clearance for the front tires. The old 22x10x16 slicks fit just fine. By
2:30 I had the necessary clearance for the 25x13's. Cool -there should be no
fender cutting during the driver's meeting! Set the alarm for 5:30 (leaving
me an hour of messing with the car the next morning)..
The carb wasn't happy.. During my work I had replaced the primary bowl gasket
with a reusable unit. Unfortunately, it was obstructing the accelerator pump
orifice. A little bit of quick tweaking, and the passage was mostly clear. I
had about 80% of my normal pump shot. It would work, but not optimally.
There were two other drivers in our class (CP), Maurice and Pete, both much my
senior (I suppose I should mention they both drive Camaros :-) Unfortunately,
Bud Jasman was not present.
My co-driver was informed by the competition that we were going to be
protested if we didn't run Mod! This was a regular regional event and I was
quite surprised. Apparently the two CP drivers felt that they had a good shot
at a trophy with Bud gone, but only if we didn't run. Their complaint was my
air cleaner. It protrudes through a hole cut in the hood. This is illegal.
I would expect to get protested at a Divisional event, but not locally. It
was something I just hadn't gotten around to. It just needs to be covered (a
scoop, closed at the front, but open at the back, is legal).
If they had said "we'll protest you if you run with slicks and that air
cleaner" the week before, I would found the time to take care of it. At first
we decided to just run Mod and let them have the trophy. But it really
started to bother me. As we left tech, I told Maurice and Pete that we were
going to tape a cardboard box on the hood to cover the air cleaner and we were
going to run CP. I don't think they believed me.
After considerable scrounging, we found a box and covered the air cleaner. We
had trouble taping to the fiberglass hood and ended up placing the box on the
air cleaner (with the back cut off) and placing the hood over the box flaps.
A few tie-wraps held everything securely. We got some good jokes, but once I
gave the reason for the box, most people were really surprised at the
situation.
As we staged for grid, Pete said the box was flamable and should not be run.
I told him he was probably right, but we were forced to do something.. As we
prepared to run he told me I should really just remove the box (but it was too
late - I didn't have a way to cut the zip ties, etc). He also mentioned that
the 430 tire compound we were running wasn't going to get hot or sticky enough
to do anything (they were used road race slicks and were free).
If you're waiting for me to say the car caught fire, it didn't! So if you
were just reading to find that part, you can stop now :-)
...
The course was quite open with some good but short go-fast opportunities. We
would need 2nd in one section, but the rest of the course could be run near
the limiter in 1st (good for about 58 mph). I had my co-driver, Curt run
first. He took his first two runs and reported that the car was "totally
hooked". His second run was a 31.989, plus a cone. Maurice and Pete were in
the 34's and 35's after their second runs. I felt Pete's Hoosier's and they
weren't nearly as soft or sticky as the medium Goodyears we were running.
Hmm.
On my second run I ended up with a 31.981 - just a hair faster than Curt. The
engine ran *awful*! We thought I might have set the float level incorrectly
and that we might be running lean. We were rather worried. We decided to
take it easy and run the course in 2nd gear. Our driving got quite a bit
better, but with the car stumbling, our times just got slower and slower.
Fortunately, my second run was fast enough to win the class :-) Bill Rietow,
coming off of a full season of running and a 2nd place trophy in SS at
Nationals went .2 seconds faster than my second run. Given the circumstances
that is just *fine* by me.
Maurice was not interested in purchasing the cardboard box after the event.
Right after the event we figured out what the problem was. It wasn't a float
problem. The box flaps had hung over the valve covers and directed much of
the engine's heat to the carburetor and fuel lines (my headers are wrapped).
We had boiled the fuel! So the box did turn out to be a huge penalty. I
would have much rather had a restrictor plate.
The car setup seems pretty close. However, I never really got the car to
oversteer or understeer on course (which is an absolute first for me). I was
able to turn the wheel to get on any line I wanted without any drama.
This weekend I'll be running Grattan roadcourse for two days. It should be
rather interesting. I think I've got the 4 B's for going fast on a road
course- Big brakes, Big tires and a (pretty) Big motor. Next weekend is the
Shelby Club at Waterford Hills...
21 Sep 1994
[email protected]
Subject: Re: summary of net.wisdon on subframes
[email protected]
> > 2. Is having them built a good idea, or should I fork over
> >the bucks for some mail order ones?
> >
> It depends on how experienced the welder is. If he does
> racing fabrication and has done many Mustang SF's then he can probably
> build a set that work great for the same or less money.
Possibly, but the number of race fab shops with significant Fox Mustang
experience nationwide is probably about 20. For everyone else, it's almost
certainly true that you should go with a proven design, rather than experiment
on your own *if* money is a concern.
I've done a lot of experimentation with strengthening my car. No, let me
rephrase that: the car scarcely resembles a Ford product anymore. Along the
way some of what I've done worked, and I talked about it here, and some
didn't. One of the things that Ford is extremely good at is designing reliable
thin-gauge sheet metal body weldments. Since these are generally very
flexible, the goal has always been to spread the stresses over large areas and
many spot welds. Yes, it flexes, but it does so in a way that lets it *live*
for 50k or 100k miles of abuse.
The problem comes in when a chassis man who may not be familiar with
strengthening unibodies gets started sticking tubes between here and there.
Some of the early subframe connectors welded a nice stiff tube between
unreinforced areas, and as a result the stresses from torsional flex that used
to be spread over square feet of belly metal were now concentrated on linear
inches of weld bead onto a single layer of 22 gauge metal. Needless to say,
they pulled out, cracked, and were a pain. So some early guys like me got to
do some trial and error, and after a while reliable designs evolved.
Now, it is absolutely possible to do better than the Global West SFCs. There
is no question that the Bruce Griggs buried-in-the-bellypan design is stiffer
and stronger, for example. But the installation cost is nontrivial, and and
even if you are happy with doing your own welding you'd be at it for a while.
So, unless you're a loony like me and just have to go test your engineering
skills on the car, a very strong point can be made for staying with proven,
and nicely debugged, hardware. IMHO, the Global West SFCs fill that bill
nicely, with a very favorable bang/buck ratio. And I have never heard a report
of damage as a result of unexpected stress concentrations, except on cars that
had been well and truly stuffed into Mr. Tirewall.
> As a side note, GW also sells some auxilary rocker pannel
> support things that you can add on to their regular subframes, but
> unless you really thrash your car it may not be worth the extra cost
> (the installation of them takes a long time, ie. $$). It was said
> that 80% of the stiffness can be gained by the regular subframes, and
> then the auxilary's add another 20%. Not worth the cost for me.
Yup. Welding the rocker-panel-stiffener supplements is takes a while and the
galvanized sandwich that is the rocker seam is a gold-plated bitch for even
the most experienced pro welder to do. But if you play with the car on the
track, they are nice items to have. Even if you only use them as jack points,
so that you can lift one entire side of the car from a single point.
> > 4. What precautions should be taken when the SFCs are welded
> >on? I read in _MM&FF_ about owners that have had carpets
> >burned by careless welders.
>
> Only comment on this siad that the welder moved the heat fast
> enough that no problems occurred. I would still be interested in more
> information on this (should I go to the trouble of pulling up the
> carpet in places to be sure, or what?). Maybe GW's are long enough
> that the welding doesn't take place underany burnable stuff?
If you do just the basic GW SFCs, this is correct. The welds are far enough
from the actual carpet-contacting belly metal that a good weld shop will have
no problem completing the job without carpet damage.
The supplements are another matter entirely, as is tacking in some exrta
gusseting to pick up ithe rear seat mounts (as I did). But that's for extra
credit, anyway. In those cases, the carpet should be lifted, which involves
pulling the lower door threshold trim and the seat. No big deal.
> I noticed that there seems to be fuel lines running in
> front of the rear subframe on the passengers side. Does this need to
> be moved around, or is it OK where it is? Any other cautions?
They do need to be slightly rerouted right at the aft edge of the wheelwell if
you are installing supplements. Otherwise, the only line that is affected is
the canister-purge fuel vapor line from the tank to the charcoal canister, and
it is a flexible plastic line and can be rerouted to your heart's content.
Jim Kurien wrote:
> The GW's are long, but they have a gusseted widget that gets welded
> on near the middle. This might be a problem.
Sounds like they have started including a gusset for the seat mounts. This is
new- you used to have to hack this out yourself, if you wanted it. It is also
(somewhat) optional, if that's what it is.
22 Sep 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> The truss rod that supports the main section (that clamps to the axle)
> pushed through/pulled out of the main section.
>
> The main section did move on the axle tube and the fastener torque
> had backed off. This is a chicken and egg sort of problem - it isn't
> clear whether the torque backed off leading to the failure, or if the
> failure caused the torque to back off. This design can't live if you
> don't maintain the proper clamp load.
> This Griggs design is pretty good, but definitely not ideal.
Yup. A Panhard rod that is used on a modified rear suspension (torque arm,
three link, or what have you) that places all of the lateral forces generated
by cornering entirely on the rod is a very highly-stressed chunk of metal. It
is a very tall order to resist those kinds of forces with hardware that simply
clamps to the axle tube, and picks up three of the rear cover bolts. However,
having said that, I'd still like to point out that the Griggs design is the
only off-the-shelf design that has _any_ choice of living in those full-race,
sticky-tired conditions. It still needs some help for truly over-the-top use,
though.
When I installed my Griggs piece, I dispensed with the bolt-on aspect of it
entirely, and welded the axle-end pickup point to the axle tube. I also cut
off that stringer that failed on your friend's car (probably in tension,
initially), and welded in a new stringer that terminated on the axle tube,
butted up against the center section. This eliminated the use of the rear
cover bolts (which was where I had thought it would fail first!). I also added
another triangulation stringer outboard of the axle pickup point, to the shock
and lower control arm bracket. I wanted to make sure that the cornering loads
were always resisted by a welded member in compression, not by a single member
that's in tension now, and compresson later.
There is no such thing as a suspension member that's a set-and-forget item on
a race car. I'd be willing to bet that that failure started as a fatigue crack
at that weld, as a result of cornering loads putting a twist into the main
axle pickup, and progressed rapidly to brittle failure of the weld. Once the
triangulation provided by the stringer was lost, there was no chance
whatsoever for the axle-tube clamp to survive. It was just a matter of time
until it slipped or blew apart. I'm glad that it "just" slipped.
For any of these tacked-on suspension members, especially those that are
mission-critical, you need to make a good tour of them and check their health
before each event. They'll *all* fail, eventually. If they're *good*, they'll
fail after 100k hours or so, and the car will most likely rust away first. If
they're less good, 100 hours. If they're hopeless, 5-10 hours. It's up to the
user to keep track of what category they fall into.
That's something I do as part of my creeper-tour ritual during event prep.
This used to take 2 hours. Now it takes a lot more, since I've added so much
_stuff_. But I get on my creeper with the car in the air and go check every
single weld on my add-ons, and as many of Ford's critical OEM welds, as I can.
Otherwise, I tend to think of them at bad times, like just as I'm ready to get
on the brakes entering a high-speed corner... I don't like to think about
welds when I'm cornering.
The harder you drive, the higher the ratio of prep time to seat time. When I
first started out, I figure I wrenched about two hours for an event, and I'd
get two hours of seat time. Not bad. 1:1. Now, over the years I've broken a
few parts due to my own inattention, and I'm more careful, not to mention that
I'm going faster and stressing things more severely. So my track prep now
takes about 16 hours, and my wife and I together will put 4 hours of seat time
in. 4:1. Still, not bad. A top-line SCCA American Sedan Mustang would probably
do well with about 10:1, assuming no off-course excursions or encounters with
competitors or tirewalls. An acquaintance of mine who runs a USAC midget runs
at about a 20:1 ratio, and a Formula Atlantic would be about 40:1.
The moral of the story is simple. You wanna drive it like a race car, you'd
damned well be prepared to maintain it like a race car. I know that Brian
knows that, and his buddy certainly does now as well. But it bears repeating
to the list as a whole every so often, since most folks usually have to learn
this when Something Important decides to punch out at a Bad Time...
26 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
I have a '83 Mustang with a full floater 9" rear suspension and coilovers.
The rear coilovers have 7" of total travel. The car is currently setup for 3"
of bump travel in the suspension, leaving 4" of droop.
I have 400 lbs springs in the coilovers (which are located just behind the
axles). Let's say that I have 1600 lbs of weight on the rear axle and that
each coilover sees 800 lbs of weight.
With this setup, each coilover compresses about 2" after initial contact when
you lower the car off of the jack. This also means that at full droop there
is 2" of slack in the system. This isn't good, as the spring won't
necessarily align properly with the top and bottom perches when things settle
out again.
This past weekend I ran the car at Grattan road course. There is a bump that
upsets the car as you come on to the main straight. The outside suspension is
heavily loaded and the inside wheels just about get picked up off of the
ground.
Presently, I have a very low rate "helper" spring installed on each coilover
to take up the slack. The helper spring is currently installed on top of the
main spring. Normally the top of the main spring is located by a pilot in the
top perch that pilots in the spring ID. Unfortunately, with the thin (flat)
coils of the helper spring fully compressed, this pilot is essentially non-
existent -the helper spring acts as a spacer and the top of the main spring
doesn't get positively located.
After this weekend's event, I saw some fairly significant wear on the lower
aluminum coilover threaded body as a result of the main spring moving around.
I could install a suspension limiting strap to prevent the suspension from
drooping more than 2" below the static ride height. I don't really like this
idea. My thinking is that it may result in my picking up the inside rear
tire. This would result in positive camber for the outside rear tire and a
loss of traction. The handling might also dramatically change the moment the
limiting strap comes into play.
Any experienced suggestions would be appeciated!
26 Sep 1994
Theodore Chen
[email protected]
Brake ducts for the front rotors. After a trip to a local race shop yielded a
price of $125 plus tax for "real" scoops and good ducting, I opted for the
cheap route this time. My setup consisted of 6" to 4" pipe reducers and 4"
flexible aluminum tubing. The big end of the reducer was squashed down
somewhat to fit behind holes I had cut in the air deflector. I attached the
tubing to the small end of the reducer (with clamps and generous amounts of
duct tape), and used long zip-ties to hold the tubing in place along the front
sway bar and pointed in the general direction of the rotor eye. I might have
been better off with 3" tubing instead - it would flow less air, but I would
be able to get the duct closer to the rotor. (BTW, as Skod mentioned here in
the past, the aluminum tubing is fatigue-prone and not really suitable for
extended use. I'll be replacing mine with Aeroduct tubing once I scrape up
the bucks.)
i'm in the process of making brake ducts for my '87 GT. i'm trying to decide
whether to use 3 or 4 inch ducting and just run it as far as the end links of
the sway bar (which is as close as i'm going to get), or use 2 or 2.5 inch
duct and use the splash shields as blanking plates for the rotor. of course,
the 2 inch stuff will flow less air, but it's more efficient... right? maybe
i can have two ducts into each rotor, one that ends at the front upper quarter
of the rotor and another that runs along the bottom of the lower control arm
and terminates on the lower part of the rotor. i'm not sure whether it's
going to clear, though.
any thoughts? which is better, a 3 or 4 inch duct aimed at the rotor, or 2
inch duct(s) that terminate on the splash shield?
hope you guys had fun at laguna seca. i wanted to go but i don't have the
bucks at the moment.
26 Sep 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
>> tape), and used long zip-ties to hold the tubing in place along the
>> front sway bar and pointed in the general direction of the rotor
>> eye. I might have been better off with 3" tubing instead - it
>> would flow less air, but I would be able to get the duct closer
>> to the rotor.
>
>i'm in the process of making brake ducts for my '87 GT. i'm trying to
>decide whether to use 3 or 4 inch ducting and just run it as far as
>the end links of the sway bar (which is as close as i'm going to get),
I have a hard time believing that this is doing anything more than providing
mental ease for the driver. The rotors are vented and the only way to
effectively cool them is to get cool air into the center of the rotor so that
it can blow out the vents. Unless you have a custom, ground hugging front
spoiler, there is a ton of air that blows under the car. Having a duct end
inches away from the rotor is, IMHO, like trying to spit in the wind.
Real ducts are a royal pain to build and implement, and not practical on a
daily driver, but they are absolutely necessary on a dedicated track car.
We've run six enduros this year, 1500 track miles, on one set of medium Power
Pads, and they aren't even 1/4 gone yet. And the same set of rotors. And
along the way we've developed the reputation to be able to outbrake Z-cars, so
we must be doing something right.
27 Sep 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Sep 26, Ron Horwitz wrote:
> I have a hard time believing that this is doing anything more than providing
> mental ease for the driver. The rotors are vented and the only way to
> effectively cool them is to get cool air into the center of the rotor so that
> it can blow out the vents. Unless you have a custom, ground hugging front
> spoiler, there is a ton of air that blows under the car. Having a duct end
> inches away from the rotor is, IMHO, like trying to spit in the wind.
Well, yes; and also no. There is a great deal of air flopping around down
there, but it's all turbulent as heck, and combined with the vortices that you
spill off the rotating tire, the airflow *inside the wheel* at speed is just
basically a stalled turbulent mess. Providing a duct that dumps a more-or-less
coherent flow right at the rotor eye does significantly increase the pumping
efficiency of the rotor, and my pyrometer measurements at some of my brake-
torture-fests indicated that the rotor temps did drop by nearly 300degF, even
with the poor efficiency. And that's certainly worth the price of admission.
You are absolutely correct that proper duct terminations will improve
efficiency even more, and I fully expect anouther 200-300degF drop in rotor
temps when I get mine done. But simply to say "Don't bother unless you can do
it _right_" is a little short sighted. Every little bit helps, especially in
an area where the Mustang is _so_ marginal.
My experience is that a 100degF drop in peak rotor temps roughly doubles the
pad life. I can get more than a weekend out of a set of carbon-kevlar pads
now. With better duct terminations that really manage the airflow, I might be
able to equal your reacord of pad life (which is pretty damned admirable, by
the way!). But with no ducts at all, I'd be using up a set of carbon-kevlars
*per day* (at $150 per set!), like I used to. I learned that lesson the very
hard way...
Track driving, as you know, is a game of tiny increments. This one's not so
tiny.
27 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
On Sep 26, 23:02, [email protected] wrote:
> I have a hard time believing that this is doing anything more than providing
> mental ease for the driver. The rotors are vented and the only way to
> effectively cool them is to get cool air into the center of the rotor so that
> it can blow out the vents. Unless you have a custom, ground hugging front
> spoiler, there is a ton of air that blows under the car. Having a duct end
> inches away from the rotor is, IMHO, like trying to spit in the wind.
As I indicated in my post, the ducts are located behind a 5" deep air
deflector (that runs the width of the car) I fabricated to replace the stock
black plastic air deflector. The main reason for its existance is to try to
get more airflow through the radiator by producing more of a low pressure area
under the front of the car. I would imagine it that it also
reduces the turbulence of the air under there, but don't have any way to know
for certain.
As far as whether or not they actually do anything, at least one list member
actually measured temps:
On Dec 14, 1993 8:10, Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware wrote:
> Subject: Re: Brake venting questions
> At the moment I have my ducts simply end a couple of inches away from
> the rotor eye, aimed in the right direction. There's no doubt that
> it's not perfectly efficient, but it was cheap and easy, it's
> maintainable, and it has been proven that it lowers my rotor temps by
> almost 300degF. I'll take it.
>-- End of excerpt from Scott Griffith, Sun Microsystems Lumpyware
My ducting is pretty similar to skod's, being 4" tubing extended out as far as
possible until tire interference becomes a problem. Of course I won't know
whether or not my setup is working as well unless I put some temp labels or
paint on the rotors and calipers and do sessions with and without the ducts.
Skod's experience is only a single data point, but it does show that ducting
can have a measurable effect without getting too fancy.
My eventual plans are to do something similar to one of the options that Teddy
mentioned. Make a blanking plate to bolt up in place of the splash shields
that covers the eye of the rotor. Run two 2" or so ducts to holes in this
blanking plate, one above the A-arm and one below. This will guide the air
right into the rotor eye and should be a far more efficient cooling method.
Agreed that brake ducts probably won't do squat for you on the street. In most
of the street situations where you'd really heat up the rotors (such as
driving in the mountains), you don't have high-speed stretches between the
turns and so won't flow much air through the ducts.
28 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
FYI, in the '95 SVO catalog you should see a Cobra brake kit. This should
consist of front and rear rotors, calipers, front spindles and hubs. It will
essentially allow you to bolt the big brakes on your car. SVO's price should
push the present systems right out of the market. I believe Steeda is asking
around $2000 for a similar setup. The SVO system will probably come in
somewhere around $1000.
By slotting the caliper mounting holes on a mill, you can move the caliper
radially inboard. Slot them .125" and you can go down to a 12.75" rotor.
Turn your 13" rotors down, and you have a brake setup that will clear most 16"
wheels (perhaps with 1/2" or so of spacer and ARP studs).
There have been at least two prototypes of this brake kit to date. The current
Mustang brakes with the current SVO rear disk kit can't touch this setup
(regardless of whether or not you run the SVO/LSC MC and SVO/LSC front
calipers). The two just can't be compared - even when hauling the car down
from lower speeds (it even makes a big difference in Solo II).
One other nice bonus with this setup is that when you mate your old struts to
the new spindle, you end up with nearly 1.5" of potential additional front
suspension travel.
It was hard to convince Don Walsh at SVO that there was a market for this kit.
28 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Scott Hung)
fordnatics
First off, 245/45/16 ought to fit in the front - it may look tight, but I've
done that swap (on a 16x7 rim, which isn't really the right thing to do) on a
'90 GT w/Tockico springs & KYBs (it's lowered between 1-2 inches). Also, I
have done a 245/50/16 (on a 16x7) on an '87 LX. These fit, but on the drivers
side, the tire would just rub on the forward portion of the fender when going
from lock to lock turn. Went to body shop that trimmed the forward portion of
fender a little (and I mean they took off ~ 1 centimeter worth of thickness)
and now it appears to fit w/o rubbing.
Secondly, since you've got a stocker w/15"ers, by going to a 16" rim, you will
throw off your speedo a little. However, according to a post on the mustang
email list, a 245/50/16 is close to the 225/60/15 in height, so that size will
cause a minimum of speedo error. The other option of course is to figure out
what Ford did to get the 16s to read OK w/the speedo. (7 tooth driven gear?)
Please note that due to production tolerances, the 2 items above may not always
hold true across all Mustangs. The only way to find out is to try it. Also,
you will note that unless you use same tires all around, you will not be able to
rotate tires like you normally do. This may adversely affect your wallet!
29 Sep 1994
"Brian St. Denis"
[email protected]
I would like some information about wear signs on spindles, wheel bearings
and races.
The last time I had the opportunity to examine my spindles, they had some
signs of wear. There were shiny streaks on the top of the snout and they were
about 1/4" long (or less). I could not feel these streaks or get a finger
nail in them, but the signs of wear was there.
The races in my rotors had signs of wear, too. As I reported before, the wear
looked like the bearing had been spinning with the rotor so the race was
resting on the same 4 or 5 rollers in the inner bearing. These 4 or 5 rollers
had left a mark on the race but this mark could not be felt, just seen.
During that examimination, I put on new rotors but left the bearings the same.
This was the first time the rotors had been taken off the "new" car and the
car had 10k miles on it. When removing the old rotors, I noticed that the
torque on the retaining nut was much more than the specification. Apparently,
not all assembly line workers know what 17 in/lbs is.
Well, during my last event, I warped both of the rotors I had just put on.
When replacing these recently, I checked the wear on the spindle. The wear
has increased and the car has only been used for 1 event and 5k miles. On one
side, there is a noticable "chunk" taken out of the top of the spindle at the
edge of the "flat" part, right where it begins to taper. The "chunk" is very
small and it runs in and out as opposed to the streaks that run the direction
the wheel turns WRT the spindle.
This time, I replaced both inner bearings and both rotors (which come with
races). My question is how bad is my spindle and how important is replacing
it? If it is important to replace the spindle, I'll probably wait until
spring (next season) before I do.
Thanks for any input.
29 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
Since Skod is on vacation, I'll answer for him.
If you have reason to believe the bearings have been spinning on the spindles,
get those spindles out of there now! Do not pass the start/finish line, do
not collect $200. And don't even *think* about doing "just a couple laps" at
TWS.
The Fox spindles and bearings are marginally sized for street loads. When the
bearing race spins on the spindle, not only does it abrade a notch into the
spindle (a stress raiser if ever there was one), but the friction generates
heat that neutralizes the heat treatment of the part, making it softer. From
there it's a vicious circle. Add in a few hundred thousand stress cycles from
everyday driving, and you've got a fatigue failure waiting to happen.
Having a wheel fall off on the street could ruin your day. Having a wheel
fall off on the track -- especially on the high-banks -- could end your life.
If you're looking to upgrade to the 13" PBR (Cobra) brakes, I'd say this is an
excellent opportunity, as you'd have to replace the spindles anyway. -- Chuck
29 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
On Sep 29, 14:16, "Brian St. Denis" wrote:
> The last time I had the opportunity to examine my spindles, they had some
> signs of wear. There were shiny streaks on the top of the snout and
> they were about 1/4" long (or less). I could not feel these streaks or
> get a finger nail in them, but the signs of wear was there.
From my experience, the spindles will show some very, very slight scoring even
with the pre-load and final torque set exactly to factory specs and with
brand-new bearings and races. I carefully examine the spindles before each
event and pay special attention to the areas where the bearings sit. As long
as the marks on the spindle are extremely faint, can't be felt, and individual
marks don't extend very far around the snout (which would indicate that the
race was spinning), I pronounce them OK.
The moment I find that I can feel the imperfection, or find a mark that
extends around the snout for any significant distance, that spindle is OUTTA
THERE. Don't take chances with the parts that hold the wheels on the car.
The price of a failure is just too high.
> The races in my rotors had signs of wear, too. As I reported before,
> the wear looked like the bearing had been spinning with the rotor so
> the race was resting on the same 4 or 5 rollers in the inner bearing.
> These 4 or 5 rollers had left a mark on the race but this mark could
> not be felt, just seen.
>
> During that examimination, I put on new rotors but left the bearings the
> same. This was the first time the rotors had been taken off the "new"
> car and the car had 10k miles on it. When removing the old rotors, I
> noticed that the torque on the retaining nut was much more than the
> specification. Apparently, not all assembly line workers know what
> 17 in/lbs is.
I must not be reading this correctly. You have evidence that that your
bearing/race combination has problems, and yet you went ahead and put these
same bearings into a fresh set of rotors and ran on them again? Bearings are
cheap, $30-$40 for a full set of good Timken metal-caged bearings and races.
If you have reason to suspect that the bearings may be anything less than
perfect (and it appears that you did), you pitch 'em and install new bearings.
Period.
> Well, during my last event, I warped both of the rotors I had just put on.
> When replacing these recently, I checked the wear on the spindle. The wear
> has increased and the car has only been used for 1 event and 5k miles. On
> one side, there is a noticable "chunk" taken out of the top of the spindle
> at the edge of the "flat" part, right where it begins to taper. The "chunk"
> is very small and it runs in and out as opposed to the streaks that run
> the direction the wheel turns WRT the spindle.
>
> This time, I replaced both inner bearings and both rotors (which come
> with races). My question is how bad is my spindle and how important
> is replacing it? If it is important to replace the spindle, I'll probably
> wait until spring (next season) before I do.
>-- End of excerpt from "Brian St. Denis"
You have a compenent that is missing a chunk. Instant stress riser. You also
have reason to believe that a bearing has spun on this component. It happens
to be one of the most critical components on the car, holding the front wheels
on the vehicle.
Now, you have a track event coming up. This event involves putting
significantly higher stresses on the car than normal street driving. One of
the components that will have to bear the brunt of the track abuse is the one
in which you have found defects.
The question is: Do you take care of the problem now, or wait until later?
Your answer: "If it is important to replace the spindle, I'll probably
wait until spring (next season) before I do."
BBBBRRRRRAAAAPPPP!!!!!!! Wrong answer. Potentially *dead* wrong.
The component may not fail for another 2 years. It may fail during your very
first session. You don't know, and you'd be a fool to find out by
experimentation. Consider the consequences of losing one of your front tires
going into a high-speed corner.
At our event at Sears Point in June, someone wrote off a GT-350. According to
what was published afterwards, the wreck wasn't caused by a mistake on the
track, but rather a mistake in the paddock. The driver knew he had a
potential problem with his brakes, but didn't want to miss a session. The
price of that decision was two knocked-over concrete highway barriers and one
smashed car . Don't ever kid yourself that it won't happen to you.
Unfortunately, should you go ahead and run with it in this condition, you're
not the only one who could end up paying the consequences. If that spindle
packs it in going into a corner, and you've taken an inside line compared to
the car in front of you, you may take out one those Porsches you're so fond of
passing. Best case is you've just managed to royally piss off the lawyer
driving that Porsche you just bent. It only gets worse from there, up to and
including death and dismemberment.
Replace that damned thing, as soon as possible. If you don't get it replaced
before the next event comes up, you don't run. Too bad. I sure as hell
wouldn't want to be on the track with someone who had seen the starting phases
of a failure and had recklessly disrgarded the warning signs. If I was doing
the tech inspection and somehow became aware of the situation, you'd be sent
back home.
Brian, I'm really surprised that you asked this question. You're been doing
this for long enough now, and been exposed to enough information off of this
list, that you should really know better. You're lucky Skod's on vacation -
I'm sure his reply would have scorched the best asbestos BVD's.
29 Sep 1994
"Brian St. Denis"
[email protected]
> From Andre:
> As long as the marks on the spindle are extremely faint, can't be felt,
> and individual marks don't extend very far around the snout (which would
> indicate that the race was spinning), I pronounce them OK.
Right, which is what I had said.
[snip]
> I must not be reading this correctly. You have evidence that that your
> bearing/race combination has problems, and yet you went ahead and put
> these same bearings into a fresh set of rotors and ran on them again?
Yes. The bearing/race combo had a problem. The race looked worn so I tossed
it. The bearing looked fine (less than 10k miles and no heat scoring or other
marks) so I used it again. Now that the bearing seems to have marked another
race, I assume the problem is the bearing or spindle. Now I have replaced the
bearings. And, while doing so, I noticed the spindle is showing more signs of
wear.
> Bearings are cheap, $30-$40 for a full set of good Timken metal-caged
> bearings and races. If you have reason to suspect that the bearings
> may be anything less than perfect (and it appears that you did), you
> pitch 'em and install new bearings. Period.
I assumed that my race was bad so I pitched it. I inspected the bearing which
looked fine the first time so I kept it (once). Since there was still slight
wear signs, like I said, I have recently pitched the bearings.
[snip]
> You have a compenent that is missing a chunk. Instant stress riser.
I don't know what a stress riser is.
> You also have reason to believe that a bearing has spun on this component.
Yes, but I don't know the mechanics of a race/bearing/spindle. I bet 9/10ths
of us on this list doesn't either. I'm not playing dumb, but I haven't
learned how a bearing functions between the race and spindle.
> It happens to be one of the most critical components on the car, holding
> the front wheels on the vehicle.
Really? Come on.
> Now, you have a track event coming up. This event involves putting
> significantly higher stresses on the car than normal street driving.
> One of the components that will have to bear the brunt of the track
> abuse is the one in which you have found defects.
Right. That is why I am making sure that I don't have a problem. Thanks
for stating this obvious point.
> The question is: Do you take care of the problem now, or wait until later?
No, the question was: How much of a problem is it? There is a big
difference.
> Your answer: "If it is important to replace the spindle, I'll probably
> wait until spring (next season) before I do."
Or, I should have said, if it is more important that I am thinking, I'll
replace it according to what I find out. (<-- assuming that the tiny chip is
somewhat important but not critically fatal.) Remember, I asked how important
this wear sign is.
> BBBBRRRRRAAAAPPPP!!!!!!! Wrong answer. Potentially *dead* wrong.
>
> The component may not fail for another 2 years. It may fail during
> your very first session. You don't know, and you'd be a fool to find
> out by experimentation. Consider the consequences of losing one of
> your front tires going into a high-speed corner.
I am considering how important a tiny chip or wear mark or whatever is on a
certain part of the spindle.
[part about me wrecking and wiping out lawyers and dieing, snipped]
> Replace that damned thing, as soon as possible. If you don't get it
> replaced before the next event comes up, you don't run. Too bad. I sure
> as hell wouldn't want to be on the track with someone who had seen the
> starting phases of a failure and had recklessly disrgarded the warning
> signs. If I was doing the tech inspection and somehow became aware of
> the situation, you'd be sent back home.
All the parts we are discussing wear and wear variably. As you mentioned
earlier, spindles do wear. I am asking how bad the wear is on my spindle so I
can take the appropriate action. You don't need to accuse me of recklessly
disregarding warning signs. In fact, I think I am following up on a warning
sign. This should be referred to as "actively and intentionally regarding".
This is my third time inspecting the spindle/bearing/race combination and the
car has 15k miles on it and 2 events. That is a quality maintenance schedule,
even for a track car.
> Brian, I'm really surprised that you asked this question. You're been
> doing this for long enough now, and been exposed to enough information
> off of this list, that you should really know better. You're lucky
> Skod's on vacation - I'm sure his reply would have scorched the best
> asbestos BVD's.
Andre, are you really surprised that I asked this question? Did you assume
that my racing experience means that I know all about the complex stresses on
the spindles? I don't. You should be glad that I asked the list for advice
because it gets these important topics out in public. Also, since I have been
on this list (around 2 years) we haven't had a detaild discussion of how much
wear is too much on a spindle. We know that shiny marks that you can't feel
are normal, but where do you draw the line? I have a wear mark or spot
potentially past the line and I am pointing it out. This was supposed to be a
learning experience for me and the readers, not a chance for you to say "you
should really know better."
Also, I know that the stresses on cars at track events are exponentially
higher than normal use vehicles and that since the speeds are way up that the
potential damage to the vehicle and driver (and possibly other drivers) is up
too. You don't need to give a Holier than Thou about your opinion, just the
facts. If you have facts, I'd like to hear them. If your opinion is "replace
it immediately", that's fine too.
By the way, where did you learn about spindle wear and "how much is too much"
in such absolute detail?
29 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Edward Vale)
[email protected]
> 3: Does anyone out there run 17" wheels on a mustang, if so what
> size tires do you recommend. What has to be done to get them
> to fit. Probably stick with the Comp T/A's.
I'm running 245/40-17 RE71s on Borbet 17x8.5 rims, with no clearance problems
at all (car is lowered 1.5"). 245/45-17 should also be no problem at all, and
I've even one guy with 255/40-17's (on the rear only). But you probably want
to keep the same sizes on the front and back so you can rotate them (17 rubber
gets pretty expensive). I'd say 245/45 all around would be your best bet.
29 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
On Sep 29, 17:46, "Brian St. Denis" wrote:
> > I must not be reading this correctly. You have evidence that that your
> > bearing/race combination has problems, and yet you went ahead and put
> > these same bearings into a fresh set of rotors and ran on them again?
>
> Yes. The bearing/race combo had a problem. The race looked worn so
> I tossed it. The bearing looked fine (less than 10k miles and no heat
> scoring or other marks) so I used it again. Now that the bearing seems to
> have marked another race, I assume the problem is the bearing or spindle.
> Now I have replaced the bearings. And, while doing so, I noticed the spindle
> is showing more signs of wear.
To save grief, it's best to replace both the bearings and the races if you
suspect that something's wrong with either one. Spending the time and effort
to decide just who the culprit is just isn't worthwhile.
[stuff deleted]
> > You have a compenent that is missing a chunk. Instant stress riser.
>
> I don't know what a stress riser is.
I'm not a mechanical engineer, so I can't give you a detailed explanation.
Suffice it to say that cracks and the like don't form out of nowhere. You'll
find that they start from some type of imperfection. Your missing chunk is
sounds like a perfect spot for a crack to start.
> > You also have reason to believe that a bearing has spun on this component.
>
> Yes, but I don't know the mechanics of a race/bearing/spindle. I bet
> 9/10ths of us on this list doesn't either. I'm not playing dumb, but
> I haven't learned how a bearing functions between the race and spindle.
With bearings, the races should stay put with regards to their respective
pieces, while the bearings rotate and provide the interface between the
rotating and non-rotating pieces. Since the fit of the inner races on the
snout isn't exactly a tight interference fit, I'll have to leave it to a
mechanical engineer (I know we've got at least one on this list) or other
knowledgeable individual to explain what keeps the race from rotating. In
short, the race rotating on the snout is a Bad Thing (TM), as the race and the
spindle snout will scrape material off each other.
> > It happens to be one of the most critical components on the car, holding
> > the front wheels on the vehicle.
>
> Really? Come on.
Yes, I was stating the obvious, but this subject is dead serious.
[more stuff deleted]
> > Your answer: "If it is important to replace the spindle, I'll probably
> > wait until spring (next season) before I do."
>
> Or, I should have said, if it is more important that I am thinking, I'll
> replace it according to what I find out. (<-- assuming that the tiny chip
> is somewhat important but not critically fatal.) Remember, I asked how
> important this wear sign is.
Actually, if you'd worded it that way in the first place, I would have been
much less concerned. What I was worried about was the attitude that, even if
it's important, it can probably wait until the spring, as implied by your
original message. _Maybe_ you'd leave it for a while longer on a street only
car, but if it rates the word "important" on a track car, it should be fixed
sooner rather than later. Sooner meaning before you go flog that puppy again.
[more stuff deleted]
> I am considering how important a tiny chip or wear mark or whatever is
> on a certain part of the spindle.
Unfortunately, my understanding is that there's no absolutely hard and fast
rule about wear marks. There's always going to be some, but how much is too
much? My yardstick came from postings on this list and asking a couple of
extremely experienced mechanics what they'd look out for.
Unfortunately, anything with a real edge can act as a stress riser very
easily, tiny or not.
> [part about me wrecking and wiping out lawyers and dieing, snipped]
But it was so eloquently written :-(
> Andre, are you really surprised that I asked this question? Did you assume
> that my racing experience means that I know all about the complex stresses
> on the spindles? I don't. You should be glad that I asked the list
> for advice because it gets these important topics out in public.
I'm extremely glad you asked the list rather than just making an assumption.
Still, mechanical stresses have been beaten to death by skod so many times on
this list that I'm extremely surprised that the term "stress riser" doesn't at
least ring a bell.
[bunch more stuff deleted]
> By the way, where did you learn about spindle wear and "how much is too
> much" in such absolute detail?
>-- End of excerpt from "Brian St. Denis"
Some from skod, some from reading a couple of borrowed books, some from
cornering a couple of mechanical engineers here at work and peppering them
with questions. I can't claim that this was any sort of formal training, or
that it was focused on this particular automotive application. However, what
came through loud and clear from all sources was that small imperfections on
something that's intended to handle a considerable load can become large
imperfections disturbingly quickly. If it's in a "mission critical"
application (don't you just love the jargon in this industry?), you take care
of it at the first sign of trouble.
What would be interesting at this point would be to determine how that chip
came to be in the first place. On the couple of scrapped spindles I've seen,
the developing problem was such that it was easy to see how the stresses of
supporting the vechile weight caused the crack. From your description, I'm
having a hard time visualizing how the chip occurred in the first place,
unless it's as a result of a material defect.
30 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Dave Desilets writes:
>I'm new to the net, but an old hand with the wrenches.
>Thanks to the vacationing Skod,I have an '89 GT Convertible
>with the following modifications:
>Camber plates/ @ -3Deg without adverse tire wear!
I have done well in regard to tire wear when running large amounts of negative
camber on a similarly setup '85 GT Convertible. I think it may have something
to do with the inherent chassis flex.
>1: Are there aftermarket fender flares for the GT that will
> flare out as well as open up the wheel wells front and back.
Ugh. I haven't really seen any flares that look good on a Mustang. The Capri
is a bit easier to do because of the way the natural lines run, but only if
you do them by hand and blend everything into the current lines with your
medium of choice and repaint..
>3: Does anyone out there run 17" wheels on a mustang, if so what
> size tires do you recommend. What has to be done to get them
> to fit. Probably stick with the Comp T/A's.
For a 17x8, the factory size is good. As I recall, that is a 245x40-17. For
a 17x9, the 270-40-17's are the hot ticket.
No aftermarket flares of any sort are required to run this tire on a Mustang
(unless you have a wider T-bird rear end). You may have to tuck the lips in
and bring the flares out just a little. This won't be noticable looking at
the car. It is quite easy to do.
The 270-40-17's on a 17x9 leave more clearance than a 255-50-16 on a 16x8
wheel.
28 Sep 1994
SANKS STEVEN WILLIAM
[email protected]
After reading all this talk about brake ducting, I'll share my brake ducting
design:
It consists of some black corrugated plastic 3" flexible pipe, the kind you
bury in your yard and hook up to your rain-spout.
Basically here's the steps
1. get some 3" pipe (buy the stuff w/ the slots cut in it for water
drainage-this makes it easy to run wire through if you have to)
2. prebend one end and tie some crazy wire (10-gauge or whatever) around
the pipe on both ends of the bend, holding the bend at 90 degrees. The
ribs in the pipe make it easy and keep the wire from slipping along the pipe.
3. you need to leave about a foot (I forgot the actual dimension) after
the bend.
4. The bend will snug right beside the roll bar mounting bushing.
5. The opening will "straddle" the verticle tie rod of the roll bar.
6. Cut a couple notches in the outlet end to help it stay centered on
the verticle piece.
7. Extend the other end under the front bumper.
8. The outlet pipe sets right on top of the steering linkage.
The whole thing fits snug, and will hang there w/o any wire- to secure
you only need about 4 strategic loops of the crazy wire and you're rollin'.
I choose the black plastic stuff over my former aluminum flex design because
the aluminum stuff crumbles and dents. The plastic stuff is strong and
doesn't care that the tie ends and friends squish it a little every time you
hit a bump or turn the wheel. The steering link rubs against the pipe and
makes some noise going over the ribs, so when some dude in a Porsche looks at
you kinda funny like your Ford has something broke on it, just show him on the
track that he isn't making up any time braking. (note, I have PF street pads
up front, the SS braided flex brake lines, and Bridgestone RE71's, and
frequent Heartland Park, Topeka, KS, i.e. 120-35 mph in 300 ft.)
Four clips with the wire cutters and you stowe your ducting til the next
event, no crumples, no problem.
Technical tidbit: I've scraped those ducts on the ground at Heartland, i.e.
my right side airdam on my '90 GT gets within 3" of the pavement w/ stock
setup (worn out struts). Wish I would of had video coverage of that!
I'll be at Oktoberfast at Hallett, OK Oct 29-30 (Weissach region PCA).
30 Sep 1994
[email protected] (Kevin Hanson)
[email protected]
In the current discussion on the fit of 17" wheels and tires for the upcoming
SVO brake kit, I haven't seen anyone specifying model years when telling us
that the 245x40 or 245x45 rubber will fit.
I believe it was 1990 when the fenders where changed to allow added clearance
for the 16" wheels. Those of us with pre '90 stangs (which came stock with
15" rims) have less room to work with.
My '89 is running '93 mustang rims with 225x55-16 Goodyear Gatorbacks. The
outside edges of the front tires contact (just barely) the plastic material in
the front part of the fender well at full steering lock.
Although the 40 series 17" tires have a smaller diameter, I'm concerned that
the increased width will still cause clearance problems on the turns. Anybody
have experience with using 245x40 or larger tires with 17x8 or 17x9 rims on
these "older" mustangs? If people want to email me directly with their
wheel/tire recommendations (for any model year), I'll be happy to post a
summary to the list.
30 Sep 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
The discussion regarding front spindles raised the term "stress riser", and
the question of the definition of the term. While I do not profess to be an
expert in this area, I can provide some classical definitions as used in
mechanics of materials:
"Stress Concentration" is the term we use in engineering. It is defined as a
discontinuity that interrupts the stress path (called stress trajectory*), the
stress at the discontinuity may be considerably greater than nominal (or
average) stress on the section; thus there is a stress concentration at the
discontinuity. *(a stress trajectory is a line everywhere parallel to the
maximum normal stress.)
The ratio of the maximum stress to the nominal stress on the section is known
as the stress concentration factor. To give you and idea of the effects of
stress concentration factor, consider a wide flat plate with a small hole in
the center of it. At the boundary of the hole, the stresse are 3X average.
Thus, the stress concentration factor associated with this type of
discontinuity is 3. This is under static loading.
The physical effect of repeated loads on material is different than static
loading, the failure always being a fracture (or brittle type of failure)
regardless of whether the material is brittle or ductile. Under repeated
loading, a small crack forms in a region of high localized stress, and very
high stress concentration accompanies the crack. As the load fluctuates, the
crack opens and closes and progresses across the section. Frequently this
crack propogation continues until there is insufficient cross section left to
carry the load and the member ruptures, the failure being given the very
descriptive term "fatigue failure". Fatigue failures occur at stresses well
below the static elastic strength of the material.
Much of this material can be found in "Mechanics of Materials 3rd edition" by
Higdon, Ohlsen, Stiles, Weese, Riley (original publication by Archie Higdon ,
1905)
I hope this clarifies the term a little better. I know this is quite dry
reading, but the message here is that type discontinuities in a stressed
member can be counted on having a stress concentration factor on the order of
2-3 times average stress.
Bill Gilbert
Sr. Mechanical Engineer
Motorola, Inc.
19 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Dave Desilets - Sun BOS Hardware)
fordnatics
On Fri Oct 14 15:20:26 GMT 1994, Skod wrote:
>after breaking out my MC and measuring it). The primary port on the
>SVO MC is actually 9/16-18. It's almost impossible to find this flare
>nut, at least set up for 3/16" tubing. That size is usually used for
>1/4" tubing.
I discovered this while collecting various bits to do the conversion myself. I
also discovered something else that confuses me:
Is there a 9/16-18 thread and a 9/16-20 thread tube nut out there?
Is this a double standard or a mis-print. Is this right up there with the 7/16
- 20 and 7/16 - 24 situation we have to deal with.
I ran into this, this A.M. I was doing my good deed for the day, at my local
parts store and discovered a small display rack of short, 8" long Bendix 3/16
Dia tube adapter lines. They all had std 3/16 tube nuts at one end X the
following thread size tube nuts on the other end:
Bendix Part number BAL101: 7/16 - 24
BAL102: 1/2 - 20
BAL103: 9/16 - 20
(Double checked, and yes, the book calls out a 9/16 - 20 thread. I did not
check the actual threads.)
These adabter lines go for $4.00 ea. The place was busy, so when I asked if he
could just order tube nuts, the answer was no. That answer came real fast, so
I would question it. Worst case, cut the line and use the tube nut.
19 Oct 1994
[email protected]
Subject: Re: Brake conversion
[email protected]
On Oct 19, Dave Desilets wrote:
> I discovered this while collecting various bits to do the conversion
> myself. I also discovered something else that confuses me:
>
> Is there a 9/16-18 thread and a 9/16-20 thread tube nut out there?
Yup, sure is. And it's a right royal pain in the butt, too, since many places
like to stock the 20tpi version (if they have it at all!), as you just found
out... You have to go to Weatherhead or one of the specialist hydraulic
vendors to find the correct 18tpi version.
> Is this a double standard or a mis-print. Is this right up there
> with the 7/16 - 20 and 7/16 - 24 situation we have to deal with.
I think that it's actually _both_ a double standard and a misprint, actually.
BTW, have you found any Ford applications for the 7/16-20 flare nuts? I
haven't, yet, but it's bound to happen any day now... I have two of them,
from one of my hydraulic-store trips. Painted 'em red, so I could identify
them when I was a hurry, and not try to use them by mistake.
> Bendix Part number BAL101: 7/16 - 24
> BAL102: 1/2 - 20
> BAL103: 9/16 - 20
Here's a quick flash that almost scares me, since it shows just how sick I am
about this stuff. Those part numbers sounded very familar to me, you know? So
I just dug out a _really_ old, dog-eared Raybestos master parts listing from
under a stack in the corner, and found a real jewel that I'd never noticed
before. Raybestos has a line of adapter brake lines, just like those that you
found from Bendix. And they have part numbers that sound *suspiciously*
similar, but a wider range, to wit:
BAL100 1/4" line, 7/16-24 to 7/16-24 (natural brass nut, GM)
BAL101 3/16" line, 3/8-24 to 7/16-24 (red nut, AMC/GM/Ford)
BAL102 3/16" line, 3/8-24 to 1/2-20 (black nut, Ford)
BAL103 3/16" line, 3/8-24 to 1/2-20 (green nut, GM)
BAL104 1/4" line, 7/16-24 to 9/16-18 (blue nut, GM)
BAL105 3/16" line, 3/8-24 to 9/16-18 (olive nut, Ford)
BAL106 1/4" line, 7/16-24 to 1/2-20 (silver nut, Ford)
Ah-HAH! Another source for the Tube Nut From Hell has been found! You can go
back to that store and order a BAL105, and you'll get the right nut. Don't get
the BAL104 by mistake, since it's for 1/4" line.
Of course, the line is too short to use as-is, and the other end would
probably need to be a 7/16-24 anyway, but it's the _thought_ that counts.
Break out the flaring tool.
The others are very good to know, since the 1/2-20 flare nut is very common on
pre-87 cars, and the 1/2-20 nut for 1/4" line is used on the large-boire rear
plumbing for the COntinentals and MarkVIIs that are common donor cars. But it
pisses me right off, since I've had that catalog since _1986_ and could have
saved myself a lot of rooting through dusty fitting bins over the years if I'd
just opened my freakin' eyes...
27 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 26, Dan Malek wrote:
> Aside from the safety and any legal issues, and mechanical differences
> due to the steering columns, the EEC-IV (somehow) has an air bag diagnostic.
> Removal of the air bag will cause the EEC-IV to always store a
> diagnostic code, and illuminate the error warning light.
Are you sure about this? According to the shop manuals, the air bag system has
its own separate diagnostic module, and its own separate error indicator (the
air bag light). If something screws up and the air bag diagnostic module
detects it, it will blink codes on the air bag indicator. The EEC-IV should
remain blissfully unaware of any air bag problem, as a result, so you
shouldn't see any air-bag related codes in it.
Folks who run their air bag equipped cars with the SCCA in Showroom Stock
racing are required to remove their air bags, to prevent accidents caused by
unnecessary deployment due to sensor failure or vigorous driving. Having the
bag go off in your face when cornering at 10/10s is a great way to make a trip
to the tirewall, and yes, that did happen a few times before they figured it
out.
If you have good belts, the air bag is a liability. On the other hand, if you
have a car with motorized-bug belts that encourage you to not use the manual
lap belt, or can't be bothered to use belts at all, the bag can be a
lifesaver. Even so, it's far from being a safety panacea. If I were to buy a
new car for my own use that had crummy belts and a bag, both the belts and the
bag would be in the scrap heap ASAP, and would be replaced with proper
harnesses and a comfortable steering wheel, regardless of any legal issues
involved. But that's just me. YMMV.
The procedures listed in the manual for removing and replacing the air bag
system are very explicit, and very detailed. In particular, the safing
procedures must be followed, or you could well end up with a faceful of bag
and a ringing in your ears. In fact, the manual recommends firing the bag
before removing it, to keep from having a sodium azide hand grenade laying
around the shop.
I won't detail the removal procedure here, other than to say that you need the
manuals. The system has been designed to be as foolproof as possible, so it
maintains a local energy source (a big capacitor) that can fire the bag even
if the battery is disconnected. It's best that you get the info on how to safe
it stright from the source.
27 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Randall Kirk Whitten writes:
>You
>might want to also consider bushings. The Energy Suspension or PST, will
>work o.k., but is often too hard and will make your entire rear axle act
>as a roll bar, thus putting you into oversteer.
I've been running these bushings for years on Mustangs with various levels of
modifications. I don't believe they create a oversteer problem. I actually
feel that they improve rear end control, _especially_ if you apply too much
power at the wrong time.
>To eliminate this, I
>would order a set of (softer than ES or PST) "88 durometer" bushings.
I think Brian St. Denis might have a thing or two to say about these ;-)
>The ES and PST bushings will also make your car drive like a tank (so
>that would be quite annoying if the car is your daily driver).
Really? Have you actually installed them in your car?
I strongly disagree with the assertion that they make the car drive like a
tank. I know at least 10 people (locally - not counting list members) with
Energy Suspension rear bushings who would very strongly disagree. If I
purchased a new Mustang, switching the rear suspension to ES bushings is one
of the first handling modifications I would perform. There will be some
degradation in NVH, but I don't feel it is that serious.
>What I mentioned were the cheaper ways of modifiying the rear suspension,
>do not forget that there is still torque-arms and trak-links that perform
>excellent, but they cost alot, but as with most everything, they can
>break too (I've seen them break!). These will also improve your braking
>distances.
The Global West unit definitely has breakage problems. However, the Griggs
unit seems to be quite strong. I think it would take a rather serious case of
neglect or poor installation to break the Griggs unit.
Ford and Chevy recently did a 0 to 100 mph to 0 mph challenge. Chevy didn't
show. Ford ran a '94 Mustang that had a Big block (505 or so) and Brembo
brakes. The car also had a Griggs torque arm. I don't recall the actual
performance, but the number was impressive (though I wouldn't be surprised if
just about any of the current front running World Challenge A road race cars
could do just as well if not better in such a test).
>there is also aluminum
>bumper braces from Bennett Racing, these weigh between a pound and three
>pounds which is significantly reduced from the thirty pound pieces that
>they replace,
The newer late model Mustangs have fiber reinforced plastic bumpers which are
quite light. The energy absorbing steel shocks aren't light, (they are spot
welded to the frame), but I find it very hard to believe they weigh close to
30 lbs. Also, I question how much weight you can save while still maintaining
the same level of crash protection.
Still, I'm always looking to save weight. Do you have a phone number for
Bennet Racing?
27 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 27, Randy Whitten wrote:
> My suggestion ragarding this is to make or buy "anti-squat" brackets,
> they relocate the lower control arm connecting to the axle by one inch.
> This does not affect the radius of the joint supplied by the front bolt
> holding the lower control arm.
But do be advised that this mod will increase the stock roll oversteer by a
good fraction, making the car feel somewhat looser. In general, it is almost
impossible to achieve much antisquat out of the nearly-stock 4-link without
also incurring a roll steer penalty. It's much easier to do with a 3-link or
torque arm, because you can make the anti-squat link act on the center of the
axle (where roll effects are minimized). If it acts at the _ends_ of the axle
as the lower arms do, the angulation in roll will result in some steering
deflection of the axle, period. It's unavoidable.
The good news is that some folks *like* feeling the rear end steer, as it
seems to offset the front end's native push to some degree. But not to a very
_controllable_ degree, and you might really not like it much for an autocross
car where large roll reactions are pretty commonplace.
Re: lower arms:
> I do not know about the dimensions of the Hotchkis units, but it appears
> to be something like "boxing" of the stockers, but with less play. They
> are quite strong though.
Watch out for all the lower arms that have solid bushings at each end, like
the Hotchkis arms. They may well help in launching the car, but they may well
_hurt_ by creating roll bind. This is especially true if they are box section
parts with a lot of torsional stiffness along their lengths! The stock U-
channel stamping can accept some pretty stiff bushings, becuase it has
essentially negligible torsional stiffness, so it will happily twist and
simply add to the roll stiffness rate. But a nice rigid (in torsion) tubular
part might be a bit too much and bind up. The better tubular arms will have a
Heim joint or spherical bearing at one end (ideally, the axle end!) to
acommodate torsional deflections in roll.
I haven't yet seen these arms cause trouble at the track, but it's only a
matter of time. Not many roadracers are running them yet.
> ...finally, my last suggestion, which is also the most
> expensive and greatest improvement in handling and traction, is to
> relocate the front crossmember, either by 1/2 inch forward (which will
> give you about 150-200 lbs. load transfer to the rear) and if you want
> to go further you can move the motor (by mounts) 1/2 inch rearward which
> will give you between 200-300 lbs, load transfer to the rear, it is a
> great way to improve braking as well as handling (but if you move the
> motor back, you will also have to get your driveshaft shortened and
> re-balanced).
Well, this has some benefits, and I can't contest the numbers at all. But it
is *highly* nontrivial to accomplish, since you'll end up with the bellhousing
practically in contact with the belly metal. This gets you more caster for
free (but there are easier ways to do it!), and does affect the weight
transfer in a positive way. But you'll be doing more tweaking than just the
driveshaft, believe me. Don't forget the steering shaft, for example, and
prepare to do major exhaust work, hack on the oil pan, and so on.
I think that Mr. Quick at Slot Car likes to advocate this because he makes a
lot of money doing it for folks. I *don't* think that it is the greatest
improvement in handling, or even in traction. It's the _last_ thing I would
do, and then only when I discovered that I just couldn't get enough of a good
thing... The bang/buck ratio is pretty low, compared with other much easier
mods that should be accomplished first.
> I must say that this is only partially from the scientific way of looking
> at the car, however, this is mostly from the trial and error standpoint,
> which becomes expensive, so learn from others mistakes.
Oh, yeah. There's the rub! The more accurate info about what works we
exchange, the less folks will tend to be sucked into the "snake oil"
moneysinks. And there are a lot of them out there!
28 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 28, Bret Toll wrote:
> Are SFC's needed/useful on a daily driver GT that only sees spirrited
> on/off ramps and occasional weekend mountain road drives? Will I be
> able to tell the difference with SFC's, and will I be impressed with
> the difference they make?
Yes. Yes, and yes.
To elaborate a bit: the tub is basically a fifth spring, and its flexibility
allows the front and rear suspensions to act independently, which is far from
a good thing. You want them to act in concert, to help control weight
transfer. You will notice the difference on your first offramp, and every one
thereafter. You will also notice the difference when you park your car beside
an unstiffened car of similar mileage 5 years on down the road.
It is a nearly vice-free improvement both to the car's handling and its
longevity. This is one mod that *nobody* has ever regretted making, to the
best of my knowledge.
28 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
On Oct 28, 8:30, Bret Toll wrote:
> I was just about to order some GW subframe connectors and was
> looking through my archive of messages on SFC's. I noticed that all
> of the people sending messages about how great SFC's helped their
> cars, had T-tops or convertables. This started me wondering if I was
> going to be able to tell the difference when I installed the SFC's on
> my 20k '93 GT (the GT being more stiff to start with).
T-top and convertible owners notice the biggest difference, but the Mustang's
chassis is flexible enough that the SFC's can be a win on any of them. While
the roof does add rigidity, the lack of any sort of crossmember across the
back on the hatchbacks limits how much affect the upper structure can add to
the overall stiffness.
The biggest difference I've noticed between my '85 hatchback (no SFC's) and
'92 notchback (with GW SFC's) is that the handling on the '92 is far more
predictable. Keeping the chassis stiff allows the suspension to do its job.
I'm not exactly sure how much of the added stiffness comes from the SFC's, but
there's a world of difference in driving the two cars.
Good welded-in SFC's are probably the closest thing to a universal mod on the
Fox Mustangs. Their only real drawback is that they are illegal under certain
racing rules, so those who need them the most can't have them. In addition to
improving the way the car handles, they're also good for keeping creaks and
groans from developing over the years as the chassis tires of all that
flexing...
28 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Randy Whitten writes:
>Brian Kelley: I don not have the Bennett # with me, but I will get it to
>you soon. The bumper braces go for around $60.00, I've seen pictures and
>they "look" (I didn't say that they were), but they look easy to make.
Thanks, but no longer necessary. A couple of other list members had the
number handy.
If they look "easy", they probably aren't what I thought they were. Making a
lightweight bracket to hold the bumper on the car isn't tough.
Making a bracket that properly collapses and absorbs energy while still saving
a reasonable amount of weight is difficult. From your brief description, it
doesn't sound like this is something suitable for street or track use.
However, they may just rely on the aluminum structure crushing. That might
work.
For my needs, I would require it to be very close to the factory unit in
durability and energy absorbing capacity. I have been very impressed with how
well the factory bumper holds up to abuse race after race, while still
protecting the chassis (in Showroom Stock racing).
>This brings up a further question of mine, actually two:
>1) Does anyone have any knowledge or experience with the Baer front arm
>kits, to my understanding, they run on bearings instead of bushings.
I don't think you would like the ride quality :-)
Spherical bearings in the front control arms (whether you buy them from Baer
or make them) are really only appropriate for serious track applications.
Poly bushings with grease fittings work very well in this application for all
but the most tricked out car. I will most likely go that route for next
season on my Capri, but it isn't a top priority. That money is better spent
putting a torque arm or three link in the car (and run polys up front).
28 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
>Since I was going to the
>SN-95 spindles, the spacer dimensions I would need would be radically
>different than the Baer kit provided at the time, since the steering
>arm is dropped 3mm and relocated outboard 6mm and my rack had been
>moved significantly.
>-skod
Questions for those of us contemplating going with the Cobra brake setup
including the '94 spindles (or those of us with '94 cars):
I guess this is directed at skod, but I'm sure other people have have
knowledge and opinions on these topics.
BTPP says lowering the steering arm 3mm improves bump steer. How much is too
much? If you have the new spindle, the later model tie rod ends, and the rack
jacked way up is it possible that you have gone too far?
Any guesses as to what the optimum setup is for cars with the new spindle?
Does the new spindle negate the need for offset rack bushings? (I guess we
will assume a "lowered" car since anyone who cares about these picky details
will likely have new springs.)
And just to get everyone confused, what are the general opinions on moving the
rack backward and under what configurations/situations is this a good or bad
thing?
28 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 27, Randy Whitten wrote:
> It seems that I tried to make a few suggestions, and it seems that I got
> hammered by the critics. I don't mind critisism, in fact it clarified a
> few things. Thanks for the input! Its greatly appreciated.
Oh, no, that wasn't hammering. Not at all. When you get hammered, you'll
_know_ it! (;-)
> 1) Does anyone have any knowledge or experience with the Baer front arm
> kits, to my understanding, they run on bearings instead of bushings.
I've talked to them about them, but have not yet run them (assuming that
you're taling about their tubular fabrications). I'm fabricating my own
tubular arms that will have Heims instead of bushings, and a nice beefy
spherical bearing instead of a ball jooint. Their concept is good, but I
haven't seen their execution yet. It is really had to justify going to metal-
on-metal joints unless you've really gone over the top on just about
everything else, though. Once again, the utility of those will be best seen
with the rest of the car stiffened up considerably.
> 2) I am having a problem with my steering (?), in pushing the car 'round
> a corner, the steering seems to stick a little, and then recover and
> continue with the turn. What is wrong here? Any suggestions? Is this
> part of the bumpsteer?
This could mean several things, but first let's clarify the situation. If by
sticking, you mean "the wheel gets noticeably harder to turn at one point in
the turn-in", that means possible steering coupler damage, rack damage,
steering column derangement, possible ball joint problems, possible tie rod
problems. Or even motor mount problems! One list member had a circumstance
where the motor mounts had given up, and would let the left header contact the
steering coupler for certain rates of turn-in (as the engine leaned over due
to its inertia) and briefly lock up the steering.
If you mean "the wheel turns fine, but at some point in the turn-in the car
just doesn't respond linearly", that might be bumpsteer or bushing problems in
the front or rear control arms.
I'd be willing to bet that it was the former. I had a steering column failure
a while back that really got my attention. I was driving slowly in a parking
lot, and the wheel seemed to "stick" a bit now and then. As I drove on, it got
worse, and finally as I was pulling into my parking space, it locked up solid.
I gave the wheel a good tweak to complete the maneuver, and it gave out a
"Crunch!" and the steering freed up.
I looked down, and my lap was covered with little shards of black plastic. The
molded plastic support for the horn and cruise control circuit slip rings
(right at the wheel) had fatigued, shifted, and collapsed, letting shrapnel
bind up between the ring support on the wheel adapter and the contact brushes
on the steering column. My little tweak had just _totalled_ the slip ring
supports, freeing up the column but letting the rings dangle loose, shorting
against one another. Good thing the horn relay had died a few months before...
You might want to check this, as it is not that uncommon in older cars.
28 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> BTPP says lowering the steering arm 3mm improves bump steer. How much is
> too much? If you have the new spindle, the later model tie rod ends, and
> the rack jacked way up is it possible that you have gone too far?
Yes, it *is*, especially if the car has also been lowered. But it's easy
enough to rework by relocating the rack, even if you don't want to go to
adjustable outer ends. You can make it work without investing in new parts.
You might just need to redrill or slot the offset bushings.
> Any guesses as to what the optimum setup is for cars with the new spindle?
> Does the new spindle negate the need for offset rack bushings? (I guess we
> will assume a "lowered" car since anyone who cares about these picky
> details will likely have new springs.)
In the case of the Fox-3, probably not. In the case of the SN-95, I don't
know. You'd have to simply measure one and see. There's no magic here, you
just set the car up at your intended ride height, drop the springs, and then
start measuring as you run the suspension through bump and droop. It's time
consuming, but not particularly difficult work.
Most of us haven't gone so far with our cars that we need it yet, and it's
neither more nor less desirable with the SN-95 stuff. You just have to spend
the time, once you decide that you need to.
In any case, as I said before, there is no single optimum. Every car will have
a different laoded ride height, and the huge production tolerances render any
single solution pretty moot. if you're going to set it, then _set it_. On my
car, I like the raised rack location, because that runs the outer-end Heim
joint almost flush up against the steering arm on the SN-95 spindle, which
minimizes offset-load torsional effects in the steering arm, and bending loads
in the bolt.
If you relocate the control arm pickup points to raise the roll center, and to
play with anti-dive, the outer ends have to _drop_, and suddenly those offset
bushings become invaluable again. In any case, you need to set it up to match
the rest of your setup. It's not a one-size-fits-all sort of thing at all.
> And just to get everyone confused, what are the general opinions on moving
> the rack backward and under what configurations/situations is this a good
> or bad thing?
It is a good thing, though difficult to do well for cheap. It's cake if you're
Dave Williams and have a mill with a nice flycutter in your fully-equipped
shop, but it's a bear for everyone else. This adjustment has more effect on
the car's Ackerman (it makes it more positive, or rather it reduces how
_negative_ it is), than it does on bump steer per se, so it is a win. But
once again, it is a pretty subtle win, unless the more obvious and obnoxious
misoptimizations are corrected first.
I'm not yet at the point where I'm ready to make the subtle Ackerman
correction that this will provide. I don't need it, just yet. But maybe
soon...
28 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> I've read elsewhere that it can be a good idea to get your frame
> straightened before you plunk in your (preferably welded in with 240
> volts) SFC's... is it worth it? how much would it cost?
If the car's not straight, then putting in SFCs will simply guarantee you a
permanently crooked car. If the car's never been hit, and if the alignment
shop doesn't moan and complain about how bent the car is every time you get it
aligned, then you can probably just weld them in. Make sure that the welder
supports the car well, and that the car is up on jackstands on a nice level
surface to keep it straight, then let 'er rip.
If the car's been hit hard, and the body shop didn't spend the time to
properly realign the frame when the unkinked it (and *very* few of them do!),
you might well need to have the car stretched back into shape on a frame rack.
And ideally, the shop would weld in the SFCs while the car was on the rack.
This is a known-good technique for correcting post-crash handling problems, at
least if you have a chassis guy who will play along. There's oen in every
major cuty, you juct have to find him.
> Q: would it be worth it to get that Jacobs electronic system that
> monitors spark plug resistance to control spark intensity?
Opinion follows. I am totally unconvinced that this box does anything, or that
any of Jacobs' nice expensive boxes are the least bit functional. Look under
the hoods of real race cars at any drag, oval, or road race, and you'll find
lots of MSD hardware, and little or no Jacobs stuff. In particular, I have
never seen any indication (other than hype from Jacobs) that their "spark
intensity box" does anything other than lighten your billfold. If you have a
specific problem to correct, there are electronics out there that can help.
But don't fall into the trap of "It's trick, so it must be good"...
But hey, that's a motor question, and I'm a chassis guy. S I'll bow to the
powertrain folks on this one.
> Up until I started reading this list I knew what I wanted to do, now I'm
> totally lost (oh and while I'm mentioning this if [email protected] really
> does have that online doc please email to me)
You got it. Enjoy.
> would I have to start worrying about bump steer at this point? or a
> camber adjustment kit?
Read BTPP, understand its "phases", and decide where you are. Then, let's
talk. Right now, in the absence of any info about other development work
you've done, I can't really say. But if I were you, I'd worry about tire
pressures and forget about the expensive hardware...
One thing at a time!
03 Oct 1994
John Bolton
> Has anyone had any experience with the ram air kits sold by Hypertech
> and/or Kenne Bell? They duct the air in from under the front fascia, I
> believe... The claims are .2 - .3 seconds off in the quarter-mile. Any
> comments, advice, or suggestions?
I can tell you about my personal experience with a Texas Turbo ram air kit on
my '89 (both long gone). If you can handle shaking the filter clean on a
weekly basis and cleaning/re-oiling every 3-6 months (YMMV), go for it. The
power gain isn't insignificant (I could feel the difference, and was laying
more 2nd-gear rubber), and in fact, I once removed the ram air and installed a
brand-new K&N (I got tired of cleaning), and I re-installed the ram air a few
days later. Why? The car was slower with a brand-new filter and no ram air
that it was with a dirty filter and ram air. If you CAN handle cleaning the
filter often, check out the March ram air kit also.
03 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Jody Shapiro writes:
>Has anyone had any experience with the ram air kits sold by Hypertech
>and/or Kenne Bell? They duct the air in from under the front fascia, I
>believe... The claims are .2 - .3 seconds off in the quarter-mile. Any
>comments, advice, or suggestions?
I am not familiar with what they offer, but a good ram air setup will make a
difference in a 5.0 that is definitely noticable. Two of my friends duct
their ram air in through the right fog light opening (one has a Saleen and the
other a GT). They say their cars are rather dead in 4th gear without the ram
air (and either can stomp the other if they disconnect it).
I wouldn't consider anything less than a 4" hose and something equivalent to a
4" diameter round intake.
03 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
>In the current discussion on the fit of 17" wheels and tires for the
>upcoming SVO brake kit, I haven't seen anyone specifying model years
>when telling us that the 245x40 or 245x45 rubber will fit.
I've said it before - the year of the car does not matter. You can most
definitely run 17x9's with 270-40-17's on a '88. They will leave more
clearance than a 255-50-16 on a 16x8. For a properly offset 17x8, clearance
should not be a problem. At the worst, you may have to tuck the inner lip.
For 17x9's, you may have to use a bat to move things out just a little.
Again, those are fairly small tires (as indicated by the tire size charts
recently posted here).
Not every car will have the same amount of fender clearance. If you find that
you have less, you're going to have to deal with it. With 17x8's, you
shouldn't have trouble.
>My '89 is running '93 mustang rims with 225x55-16 Goodyear Gatorbacks.
>The outside edges of the front tires contact (just barely) the plastic
>material in the front part of the fender well at full steering lock.
I suggest you either readjust the steering stops or take a small penalty in
your turning radius and turn the wheel less.
But this is a good point, and I'm glad you mentioned it. This isn't something
that I (or my friends) consider to actually be a problem. We'll gladly take
the hit on ultimate turning radius for a better tire/wheel package. So when I
say you won't have clearance problems, keep that in mind - I'm not including
turning radius.
>Although the 40 series 17" tires have a smaller diameter, I'm
>concerned that the increased width will still cause clearance problems
>on the turns.
Is this really such a big problem?
03 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Carl D. Morris II writes:
>I own an SVO that came stock with 16" wheels, and when
>I tried to put 245/50's on my stock wheels (not one of my better ideas
>for a 7" wide wheel), they rubbed pretty significantly on the back whenever
>I hit a bump. The question is, how are you guys (and Saleen, and...)
>getting these widths into your wheel wells without rubbing? It seems like
>the 8" and 9" wheel widths would make the rubbing even worse.
Obviously, you need to have the correct offset. If the wheel doesn't fit
right, then obviously it won't clear. In some cases you can use spacers to
make up for minor problems or tune the handling. But you've got to use good
spacers and they really have to be flat and should fully support the nut seat
- don't use cast, slotted spacers (if you know what's good for you and your
wheels).
If you're going to run spacers, I strongly suggest you also install good extra
long studs. I use ARP. Morosso seems to make good 5/8" studs, but my friends
have broken their 1/2" studs and we won't even consider using them in that
size. Ford does make good fasteners, and that includes wheel studs. In the
1/2" size, I'd rather run the Ford fasteners than the Morosso.
03 Oct 1994
[email protected] (DAVID S ZECKHAUSEN)
fordnatics
In a conversation with Scott Griffith (the Mustang road racing God) last week,
he told me that it is not unusual for a 5.0 with 59,000 miles to have lost
any limited-slip action (or posi as Ford likes to call it.) He suggested that
I have my rear-end (or rather, my Mustang's rear end!) "restacked" and he
mentioned a technique of placing the discs so that there was more working
friction. He even made a diagram with characters! He also said that the
Auburn unit was not a good idea because you basically throw it away after
it wears out. I checked out the price for restacking the rear at a local
shop. They want $250 or about 3 times what Scott says it should cost!
When I was ordering a 3.55:1 rear gear set, the person on the phone suggested
adding an extra disc plate when I restacked the rear. He also said that
Auburn units WERE rebuildable and were a better choice for road racing.
As a posi-neophyte (I only know about Torsen limited slips) could someone tell
me what the deal is with getting good, reliable posi action out of the 5.0?
If I want to rebuild the stock unit, what's the best way and what parts do I
need to get? (part numbers would be helpful) If the Auburn unit is the
best, where do I get one? (I assume Saleen is overpriced)
Thanks for keeping me "on track" !
04 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
fordnatics
Chuck Fry writes:
>I believe that Auburn recently made replacement parts available only in
>the last few months. My sources suggest that while Auburns are great
>for drag racing, they quickly self-destruct in road racing use.
A friend of mine rebuilt his Auburn (with parts from Auburn) about two years
ago. The diff is still working fine despite quite a bit of road course use in
a 300 HP Mustang.
The main reason for the short life of the Mustang differential is because the
four link rear suspension unloads the inside tire during cornering, allowing
it to spin freely and wear out the clutch mechanism (whatever type it may be).
If you spin that inside wheel coming out of a turn, you'll burn out the
differential *very* fast. If you have one wheel in the dirt and one on the
track, the same applies. You can do serious damage to your diff in one
glorious burn out.
If you put your money into making the rear suspension work, your differential
problems will nearly disappear. The solution is a panhard or watts and a 3
link or a torque arm. Until you do that, you'll always be smelling like axle
lube.
One way to make the four link work is to run a Detroit Locker rear end. You
can go fast that way, but it is a kludge and not a true fix (and it takes a
very strong setup to be reliable). It is also unpleasant on the street. But
for putting serious power down coming out of slow corners, it still beats a T-
lok or Auburn (even with a 3 link).
Recently a company has come out with a locker for the 8.8. I think it is
called the True-lock (but I'm probably wrong). This is definitely the
absolute hottest setup for a Street Prepared Solo II Mustang -torque arm or
not. But I would not put one on a track car if it had a torque arm or 3 link
(unless you're really having trouble with the true differentials).
If you have a "worn out" diff now, after a torque arm installation you may
find that your "worn out" diff is actually acceptable. One of my friends had
that experience and it isn't uncommmon.
> Traction-Lok - nice gradual action well suited to street use and light
>road racing, wears out clutches quickly (months in street use, 1 or 2
>events in road racing), cheap to rebuild, can be made tighter with
>appropriate shims
Depending on driving style, course and *how* the rebuild was done you can get
more life out of the diff. The how part is rather important. There is a wee
bit of magic here.
> Auburn cone diff - effective for drag racing, wears out quickly in road
>racing, expensive or impossible to rebuild, adjustments??
We've run the same Auburn on our Cobra R A Sedan car all season and it is
getting a little worn but is mostly there. The car get gets driven very hard.
Note that I would only install an Auburn on my car if I was running a torque
arm or 3 link. I do feel that they don't last long enough in a four link car.
> Detroit Locker (tm) - Ratchet action positively locks under power,
>demands gentle touch with throttle, durable, rebuild cost ??
SCCA TRANS-AM will standardize on either a locked rear or a Detroit Locker for
the '95 season. Rear end development costs were getting to be too much (lots
of trick stuff to test, lots of track time, lots of tires used in testing.
Fewer used tires for my car :-(
I am the second owner of my Detroit Locker. It has been in Hard service for
over 5 years without any sort of rebuild (it had life really hard when it was
run with a 4 link and slicks!).
I don't feel that it demands a particularly gentle touch. People who drive my
car on road courses say that you don't even notice the locker - it just
*works*. On Solo II courses, the noise from the locker is more noticable and
sometimes people think they broke the car.
04 Oct 1994
"Brian St. Denis"
[email protected]
> Why does
> the right rear tire break loose so easily during a right hand turn?
The reason it is "easily" broken loose during a right hand turn is because
weight is shifted towards the left front when turning right. If you are
braking, the weight is even more in the front and can cause the rears to lock
(or break loose, depending on your terminology). When accelerating, weight is
somewhat shifted towards the back but still way over on the left.
This happens commonly when there is a combination turn before a striaght in
road racing. As the second turn is made, the weight really swings from one
side to the other, past the point it would be in a steady state turn.
Applying the throttle at that point could likely cause the inside rear to
spin. A possible driver correction would be to 1) wait just a split second
longer for the car to settle before applying the throttle 2) apply the
throttle more gradually.
As far as the rear end goes, I have seen many Mustangs that exhibit this
problem but that can still do dual burnoffs. I'll let the rear end experts
fill you in on wear signs and rebuilds of rear ends.
07 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Warwick Tobin)
[email protected]
> Disconnect the battery for 10 minutes to clear out any 'learned' fuel
>curves.
>Disconnect both oxygen sensors and drive around that way for awhile. The car
>will go into open loop failure mode and use the factory default fuel curves.
>If
>the car runs better, then the oxygen sensors are probably at fault. Note that
>it'll take the car 10 minutes or so before it gives up on getting a voltage
>from
>the 02 sensors, so it'll be running on warmup curves up until then. The check
>engine light will come on when it goes into error mode. While doing this the
>idle may be a little unstable, but the car will drive just fine (or at least it
>should).
>
> If the car does not drive well, I'd start suspecting the MAF meter.
>
> This won't give the optimum mixture, but it'll be close enough for testing
>purposes.
>Cliff
The above idea sounded interesting, so I tried it. Sure enough, after about
10 minutes the check engine light came on and the idle started surging a
little bit. I couldn't really tell for sure if the car ran better or not. It
felt like maybe the engine was pulling a little stronger and smoother, but I
probably just imagined it. It was definetly no worse than with the sensors
hooked up though. With the exception of the unstable idle and the glowing
check engine light, I couldn't even tell that both my oxygen sensors were
disconnected! The car seemed totally normal. So what does this mean, if
anything?
If I keep driving the car with the sensors disconnected, what kind of mileage
can I expect (from the factory default fuel curves)? Better than what I've
been getting (12 mpg)?
Even though I want it to be true, I find it hard to believe that the O2
sensors alone could account for my mileage problem.
Here are my answers to the list of things Chuck Fry wrote:
> - Inflate tires to at least 30 PSI rear, 32-33 front
I have low-profile 17" tires and I keep them inflated in the upper 30 psi range.
> - Front toe-in should be 1/16" to 1/8". More chews up tires and gas.
I'm not sure. Can't find the printout from my last alignment.
> - Use the right lubricants. Factory spec for '89s is 10W-30 engine
>oil, Dexron II ATF in the T-5 manual tranny, and 80W-90 gear lube in the
>diff.
I use Mobil 1 10W-30 synthetic in the engine. Not sure about tranny or diff.
> - Use at least a 180 degree thermostat. OEM is 195 degrees.
Don't know what I have. Whatever was in the car when I bought it used.
> - Replace the air filter (or wash if a K&N) at reasonable intervals, at
>least every 10K miles. Check the screen on the MAF for blockage.
I checked my K&N and the MAF. Both look fine.
> - There's no reason to wind out the engine in traffic. Shift at 2500
>RPM or less if you're boxed in.
I'll be the first to admit that I drive pretty hard, but no harder than most
of the members on this list I bet. When cruising I keep the revs under 2000,
sometimes barely above 1000 (thanks to those 2.73's). When driving hard I
usually use full throttle in 2nd gear and shift to 3rd somewhere between 2500-
3500, and then on to 4th shortly after that. This is my average driving style.
Of course there are days when I'll repeatedly floor it in 1st, redline it in
1st and 2nd, etc. But then there are other days when I just go along with the
flow of traffic. It should all even out right? 12 mpg just sounds too damn
low to me.
> - Are you making lots of short trips on a cold engine? That will kill
>mileage.
Pretty much ALL of my driving is city type driving. Most trips are less
than 8 miles. This is unavoidable.
> - Check for worn drivetrain parts, especially U-joints and axle
>bearings.
My pinion seal is leaking, and who knows what else is wrong in the
rear end.
> - A bent or skewed rear axle could be costing you mileage.
I had a bent axle once a long time ago, but it was replaced.
> - Are your brakes dragging? Check that the rear brakes aren't
>overadjusted, and that the front brakes retract properly.
The front brakes are fine. Not sure about the rears, haven't checked.
> - I imagine clogged catalysts could cause poor mileage. Does your
>engine pull hard to 5000 RPM under WOT acceleration? If not, have them
>checked.
Yes, my engine pulls hard to redline. I've informally timed 0-60 to be
somewhere in the 6 second range, so whatever the problem is, it's not
affecting performance.
> - Likewise, check for crimped exhaust pipes.
> - A short in the electrical system, or an AC compressor clutch that's
>always on, could put a major drain on the engine.
I don't think there's a problem with these things.
Thank you to all who have responded so far.
10 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Ajay Patel)
[email protected]
Chris writes,
> '92 GT
>Crank - Diam 5.25"
>Water pump - Diam 4.75"
>'94 GT
>Crank - Diam 5.75"
>Water Pump - Diam 4.25"
> It seems that the '94 accessories turn more than the pre '94 V8's. I wonder
>why they did that ? Emmisions maybe ? Extra cooling ?
Perhaps Extra cooling. I use the '94 Cobra Water pump pulley on my '91 Stang.
To help speed up the water pump, and cool my car better. Worked like a charm,
and now it stays at 180 degrees, even with my SuperCharger pumping out extra
heat. It required a 1 inch shorter belt.
11 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Some time back, I posted an article on a mod that I had done to the 8.8" axle
in my Mustang that I thought might be of interest here. Basically, it was a
way to plant the much stronger 9" big-bearing axle shafts in the 8.8" housing,
which provides for much of the strength of the 9" (at least in terms of axle
life) at a much lower cost than simply setting up a 9" axle for the Fox body.
It has worked moderately well for me, and the additional stability provided by
the much stiffer axle has helped cure a number of vexing rear brake pad
knockback problems for me. It's certainly true that this hybrid 8.8/9" combo
isn't as strong as a 9", and those of you who have decided to take the plunge
and do it right have certainly done the right thing. It just saved me the
right amount of money at the time.
Having said that, if there's anybody out there who actually decided to try
this as well, here's a heads-up. I blew up an outer bearing after only 3
events on mine, my last outing at Laguna Seca. Leaving Turn 6 at full chat,
the outer race spalled off a chunk under the thrust load and bearing
destruction followed promptly: vigorous, instantaneous, and exothermic.
It was, as they say, a bit of a mess. Car and bozo survived, just the same.
Turns out that Moser sells this conversion kit with deep-groove ball bearings
(RW-905, or D4AZ-1226-A) that might be more appropriate for drag racing than
for supporting heavy thrust loads generated by sticky tires in roadracing use.
The situation is not helped by the fact that all the old manufacturers of this
bearing except one (Green Bearing of Columbus, OH) have dropped it. After
several calls, one of which was to Moser, who said that they'd never heard of
any problem with those bearings, and one of which was to the good folks at
Mark Williams (who practically rolled on the floor laughing at the thought
that someone would even _try_ roadracing with those bearings), I arrived at
the same conclusion that loads of dirt-track folks and others before me had
already got which is, avoid these bearings.
The concensus of the folks at Mark Williams, a pile of racing buddies, and my
local gear-oil diver, is that the best bearing for the 9" Ford big-bearing end
is the Timken Set 10 roller, which is what I have in there now. The Mark
Williams folks have a larger Timken roller bearing that requires a funky
retainer, a U499 I think, but I haven't played with that one yet. I may latch
onto a set of spare axles with those bearings, just for shits and grins. If
anyone else has good non-floater experience to add, I'd like to hear it (hey,
Brian and Calvin- this is your cue!).
Anyhoo, the point of all this rambling: if you are running a 9" Ford big-
bearing non-floater axle, and you have the Green Bearing RW-905/D4AZ-1226-A
deep-groove ball bearings, you might want to consider getting them out of
there before they blow up. This is likely to happen if you, like most budget
racers, snagged the axle out of some yard-queen, as those bearing were the
standard part for just about all the late passenger car applications. These
bearings _look_ just impressive as hell, if you're used to looking at the
miniscule outer bearings from the 8.8", but they just can't keep up with the
thrust loads produced by modern tires.
You learn something new every time out. Hope that helps someone out.
11 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 11, Calvin Sanders wrote:
> So I have been wanting to hear Scott's experiences and if they continued
> to be OK then I was going to try his setup.
>
> Mark Williams is who I would guess would have the most experience with
> our type of setup. They supply all of the budget classes that don't run
> floaters at our local asphalt oval track. I would trust waht they say.
Don't get me wrong. All indications are that this setup will be very reliable
with the Set 10 roller bearings, and the entry cost is pretty low. My point
was that folks who buy this should specify those bearings, instead of the
default bearings, which appear not to be correct for this application. Shoot,
interested parties could even simply order the housing ends and axles with no
bearings or retainers, and then get the mondo-duty U499 circle-track bearings
and retainers from Mark Williams. Or even simply order the bits to do all this
stuff through Williams to start with! Their axles are arguably more tough
anyway...
It was just a heads-up on one minor component that is pretty easily replaced,
and may be found on many yard axles that budget-minded racers might talk
themselves into using. But there are many, many other ways to skin that cat.
11 Oct 1994
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Oct 11, Robert King wrote:
> Well, its time for front brake pads on thos old beast (again!) Scott
> Griffith recomended rebuilding the calipers (they DO have 170k miles on
> them, after all,) and I wondered how difficult it would be to put in the
> SVO/LSC calipers in place of the stock units? Would theyt bolt up
> correctly? Would I need a different master cylinder?
The 73mm SVO/LSC calipers drop right on, using your stock '88 brake lines,
mounting pins, and everything. In fact, I believe that they actually use the
same casting as the 60mm stock calipers, and simply machine it out to the
bigger bore. There will be no fit or clearance problems of any kind.
However, you'll really need to change to the SVO 1.125" (28mm) bore MC from
your stock 21mm fast-fill MC. If you don't you'll have hypersensitive brakes
(very prone to lockup at a low pedal effort) and a very long pedal, due to the
fact that the hydraulic ratio is numerically too high. The calipers and MC
need to be upgraded as a system to preserve pedal feel. Don't get this MC from
a dealer, unless you like spending buckets of money. Get a quality rebuilt
unit- they are commonly available, since they were used on the pre-ABS Lincoln
LSC and a variety of the Ford fatrides. The Raybestos reman part number is
39447, as an example, and it'll be less that 1/3 the cost of the dealer part.
Those of you who have a rear disk upgrade kit with the SVO MC, and are still
running the stock front calipers, have exactly the opposite problem. The
hydraulic ratio is off the _other_ way (it's numerically too low), and the
pedal will be very high and firm. And the pedal effort will be *very* high,
and nonlinear as the booster saturates. Some folks like that high pedal
effort, but it was too much for my wife to be able to lock up the brakes in
track use, back when I had this setup in the car.
I mumble on at length on this topic in my article "Building the Perfect Pony",
including all the more difficult and obnoxious parts (such as adapting the
brake lines to the new, and different, fittings on the SVO MC). Bolting up the
calipers and MC is cake. The plumbing, on the other hand, is a bit of a pain.
If you don't have a current copy, drop me an email and I'll send it out.
11 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
Mechanically, the 73mm SVO/LSC/T-bird/etc. front calipers are a direct
replacement for the stock 65mm calipers on '87-93 V8 Mustangs. They can even
use the same pads! Just bolt 'em up and go. I can get them for $33 with
exchange at our local parts warehouse chain, *with pads*! Just make sure you
get them with steel, NOT PHENOLIC, pistons.
However, you'll find your brake pedal travel a tad long with this setup. Best
to upgrade to a larger master cylinder, for instance the 1.125" diameter SVO
master cylinder that's also found on the Turbo T-bird. This master is included
in the SVO and Stainless Steel Brakes rear disc brake kits, if you happen to
be making that particular swap. This is the combination I have on my Mustang,
and I love it! Highly recommended.
Somewhere I've got a compilation Skod made of all the applicable master
cylinders for the Fox 3-based Mustangs, but it would take me all day to find
it.
12 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Robert King)
> On Oct 11, Robert King wrote:
> > Well, its time for front brake pads on thos old beast (again!) Scott
> > Griffith recomended rebuilding the calipers (they DO have 170k miles on
> > them, after all,) and I wondered how difficult it would be to put in the
> > SVO/LSC calipers in place of the stock units? Would theyt bolt up
> > correctly? Would I need a different master cylinder?
>
> The 73mm SVO/LSC calipers drop right on, using your stock '88 brake
> lines, mounting pins, and everything. In fact, I believe that they
> actually use the same casting as the 60mm stock calipers, and simply
> machine it out to the bigger bore. There will be no fit or clearance
> problems of any kind.
Well, as luck woulld have it, This month's copy of MM&FF arrived yesterday,
and guess what? They have an article on this very swap -with photos and
everything! They stress the need to replace the stock MC with the SVO unit,
and mention having to modify the front brake lines (joining them with a 'T'
before mating to the single fitting on the MC.) I've never worked with brake
lines before. Is this somthing I could do myself with the proper tools?
> I mumble on at length on this topic in my article "Building the
> Perfect Pony", including all the more difficult and obnoxious parts
> (such as adapting the brake lines to the new, and different, fittings
> on the SVO MC). Bolting up the calipers and MC is cake. The plumbing,
> on the other hand, is a bit of a pain. If you don't have a current
> copy, drop me an email and I'll send it out.
An excelent resource Scott! My copy dates back to at least June 10 and maybe
earlier. If you've made any updates recently, I'd appreciate a copy. Also,
you might mention in your brake section that Central Coast Mustang and Dallas
Mustang Parts carry the correct flexible SS brake lines for the Fox chassis.
11 Oct 1994
John Bolton
mustangs mailing list
> I am going to be changing to either 373 or 410 gears real
> soon and I am curious about what speedo gear I will
> be needing. I am going to switch the drive gear in the
> transmission to a 7 tooth. I am going to be running
> a 265/50/15 tire. Possible a 255/60/15 if I go with the 410's.
> I am currently running 355's with 265/50/15's
With a 7-tooth drive gear:
| 265/50-15 255/60-15
-----+----------------------
3.55 | 20 19
3.73 | 21 20
4.10 | 23 22
> If some one has the formula's to figure out which speedo
> gear to use, if they could send them to me, it would be very
> much appreciated.
The formula, from the SVO catalog:
(# drive gear teeth)(axle ratio)(tire revs per mile)
driven gear teeth = ----------------------------------------------------
1000
I'm quite sure the above formula applies only to Ford products.
Another helpful formula:
63360
tire revs per mile = ------------------------------
(pi)(rolling diameter, inches)
12 Oct 1994
[email protected]
mustangs
On Oct 10, Michael Herrmann wrote:
> I have an '88 LX 5.0 with 70K miles, and I have been losing brake
> fluid recently, which causes the dashboard brake light to come on.
> Hey, what do you know...finally, a Ford indicator light/guage that
> works properly :-)!
It'd better! Losing brake fluid is a major fault, and one to correct as
quickly as you possibly can. If you're losing enough to have the light come
on, that's a big issue. In the later cars with the fast-fill MC, that light is
triggered by a magnetic reed switch that sense the level of the float in the
reservoir, and the fluid has to get pretty low to switch it on. '86 and
earlier cars used a microswitch that mechanically sensed the position of the
shuttle valve, in case anyone cares, and that was much more likely to come on
for minimal problems (like driving your car on the track and wearing the rear
shoes down rapidly).
Look at the prop valve and see where it's leaking. If it is the prop valve
assembly, I'd be willing to bet that it is leaking from the rubber vent cap in
the actual proportioning valve bore plug, indicating that the piston seal in
the proportioner has died. If that whole prop valve block is dry, then the
leak has to be elsewhere. Hopefully, the puddle is forming there, right under
the driver's side strut tower.
Thanks to Neil Narwani for the following ASCII graphic, rotated 90 degrees
clockwise from how it'll be mounted in your car (I'm too lazy to retype it
rotated properly...):
> _
> | | <--- Shuttle valve assembly port hex cap
> ,_---_.
> B Primary outlet | | Primary (front) inlet from MC
> O | |
> T `- -' T
> T | |/ O
> O | || <--- Mounting bracket P
> M ,-----' |\
> Secondary | `-.
> outlet | | Secondary (rear) inlet from MC
> `--. ,-. |
> | | `--'
> | |
> | |
> ===== <--- Proportioner valve bore vent cap
> with rubber plug in middle.
One question to ask: you didn't just install rear disk brakes, did you? If
you did, some of the kits tell you to remove the seal on the proportioner
valve piston. If you do this, and simply replace the stock vented plug, you'll
immediately develop a huge leak in the rear system, right through the rubber
vent cap. The shuttle valve will try to shut it off, and you'll have exactly
these symptoms. Some of the older kits make no mention of this issue, and
don't include the solid brass (nonvented!) bore plug you need if you do that.
They let you find out by making puddles. Not good!
The part number for that solid plug, if this is the case, is M-2450-A. If not,
then ignore this...
> The car would stop fine, but once I'd come to a stop, the pedal would
> slowly make it's way toward the floor! Midas just called and said it
> is a fried proportioning valve, and they can replace it, parts and
> labor for $150.00 (ouch!).
A replacement cup seal for the proportioner piston could be had for about
$.50, if only you could get the Ford dealer to get it for you. Unfortunately,
they treat the prop valve as "magic-unserviceable-don't-touch-replace-as-
unit", though, so that is usually a losing battle. Sad, because you'd probably
only have to bleed the rear brakes, although flushing the entire system (both
front and rear) is always in order.
Even if you swap out the entire prop valve assembly, it's pretty cheap. The
part can be had used for on the order of $20, and installed in the privacy of
your own driveway in about an hour. And then you get to bleed the system
yourself.
Remanufactured parts, fresh fluid, and two hours of a normal shop rate would
probably come to right around $150, in most parts of the country. So they
aren't totally out of line here. Shop time is expensive, and they will have to
spend some time with their pressure bleeder futzing around to get you a firm
pedal back again.
> Is the part very expensive?? Is that hard to change? What is
> involved in doing this? If it is not too much trouble, I'd like to
> try fixing it myself. However, I have limited brake experience, other
> than changing pads/shoes, etc. Should I leave it to a professional???
In your '88, it should just require a 7/16" and 1/2" combination flare nut
wrench, a 13mm socket to remove the nuts that hold the prop valve to the strut
tower, and a few paper towels to soak up the puddle. And a few cans of fresh
brake fluid, but it sounds like you have that already! Except for bleeding the
brakes, which we've already beaten to death here, it's really pretty
straightforward wrenching. You could do it in two or three leisurely hours on
a pleasant Saturday afternoon, and profit by the experience, rather than
feeding the sharks your $150. IMHO, you have a much better chance of getting
it right than most Midas franchises, as well.
Once you have it changed out, the fittings retorqued, and the system bled,
then clean the neighborhood down, especially the hard lines and tube nuts. Use
some brake cleaner, and get them nice and dry. Hop in the car, and stand on
the brake pedal, nice and hard as you would in a _blind panic_. Then hop back
out and see if any fluid has seeped at any of the flare nuts. Retorque as
necessary to get a good seal, so that the nuts and tubes stay dry after your
pressure test.
Dirk suggested that you check the MC. Good point, but a leaky MC won't cause
fluid loss, unless it's leaking at the primary piston seal. In which case,
you'll have brake fluid coming out of the bottom of the booster. An internally
leaky MC will simply let the pedal drift down, but won't affect the overall
level of fluid in the system.
if the prop valve is dry, and the booster is dry, the leakage must be
somewhere else. Do yourself a favor in any case, and verify their diagnosis.
Check the flex lines, the wheel cylinders, the calipers, and the hard lines.
Ford's brake tubing is not the best, and it is not totally inconcievable that
you might have split a hard line too. Get dirty, and find the leak. Then the
swap of whatever is actually the problem is straightforward, and is perfectly
amenable to "fix-it-yourself" learning...
13 Oct 1994
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Oct 13, Robert King wrote:
> Those of you familiar with the swap know that the *two* lines going
> into the proportioning valve must be 'T'd together to connect to the
> single front brake fitting on the master cylinder. What is the easiest
> way to do this? Since this is probably the only time I'm going to mess
> with steel brake lines in the forseeable future, I'd like to do this with
> flexible braded stainless steel lines, rather than investing in the correct
> flaring tools, connectors, tubing benders, and steel lines (however, it
> they are cheap, and easy to use, I can always learn.) Or perhaps this is
> somthing I should let a hydraulic shop handle?
Unfortunately, you can't use the braided lines for this without doing some
pretty heavy fabrication. The SVO/LSC MC has very funky threading for its
primary outlet port, and there are no commercially available adapters to
convert that directly to the 3AN fittings you'd need to use stainless/Teflon
flex lines. So, you're stuck with at least a few SAE flares, and bending hard
lines. First: I hope you have the flare nuts for the MC ports. They're hard
to find, although a few really good hydraulic houses have them.
You'll need a tee fitting of some type, and you'll need to make a few flares.
Your '88 GT has a 10mmx1 ISO bubble flare for one of the front lines (the one
that goes directly to the MC), and a 7/16-24 SAE 45deg flare for the other
(that comes from the prop valve outlet port), so ideally the tee you use would
take one of those.
Stainless Steel Brakes has a very bizarre brake line made up for this exact
function, in fact, that takes the 10mm ISO flare and tees it to a line that
fits the 1/2-20 SAE flare on the SVO MC and the 3/8-24 SAE flare on your '88
prop valve. By far the easiest thing would be to call them and have them
second-day-air the line to you!
Otherwise, you'll need to get an SAE flaring tool, a tubing cutter, and a foot
or two of Bundy brake tubing. Ideally, get a preflared length that has a 7/16-
24 SAE flare nut already on each end. That's two flares you won't have to
make! Then, you'll need a tee. Might as well make it an SAE flare tee, unless
you want to go all the way and make AN flares (don't hit me...).
SAE double flares are hard to make, but you can do it. If there's a hydraulic
house that will do the cutting and flaring for you, all the better. The only
problem will be reflaring the one front line that currently has the 10mmx1 ISO
flare on it. But maybe you can find a tee that takes two SAE flares and one
ISO flare. The SSB kit uses a fitting that takes a 10mm ISO inverted flare
_male_ inlet (they use an ISO tube nut), and provides a 10mm ISO female and a
3/8-24 SAE female outels. Brother!
The problem here is really one of having too much leeway, and too many
choices. There are about two dozen ways you can make that tee, depending on
what fittings your hydraulic supply house has in stock. You can do it, and
it's not that hard to do. You jusy may find yourself cursing in languages you
didn't know you knew, is all.
If you're going to make flares, make all the same size and kind (for instance,
all 3/8-24 SAE 45deg flares on the tee). Don't complicate the already
obnoxious morass of fittings and sizes that Ford saddled you with! And good
luck. Let us know how you make out. If worse comes to worst, and you finally
run out of Hungarian obscenities, I could even be convinced to make one for
you and send it to you for a nominal fee....
13 Oct 1994
Eugene Y C Chu
>>I thought the 69-71 Versailes rears were the only direct swap.
>
>I believe that only 77-80(missing a year or two here?) Versailles rear ends
>are direct swaps for Mustangs. I guess I should have been more clear in my
>original post. I used the 77 Mark V parts from the axle retaining plates
>out for my swap into a '77 Bronco 'banjo' housing.
The Versailles rearends will fit a 68 and earlier Mustang directly. It is
about 2 inches wider flange to flange than a 69-73 Mustang, and I'm not sure
how much wider it is than the Mustang IIs. I'm not exactly sure where the
extra width comes from either; the housing, or some extra space for the
caliper mounting bracket. In any case, I have a set on my 69 Mach I, and on
really hard bumps, the outside edges of the tires rub against the fender lip.
One of the benefits I see with this rear end is that its housing is HUGE
compared to the Mustangs'. It's true that its axle is only 28 splines, but I
think if you're building a hybrid, you could probably stuff 31 spline hardware
into it. You will also have to move the bearing and bracket onto the new
axle, perhaps requiring some modifications.
One other disadvantage is that the bigger housing is heavier, and you'll need
to modify the leaf spring perch for the bigger U bolts as well.
>75 or 76 to 79 Lincoln Mark V- 11.5" rotors-standard equipment
>77-81 Lincoln Versailles - 10.66" rotors-standard equipment
>75 or 76 to 79 LTD's, Thunderbirds-11.5" rotors-optional equipment-I think
>these are hard to find
>80-something-93 Lincoln Mark VIII-11.5" rotors(I think)
The Granadas and Monarchs of similar years were also available with the
Versailles rear end as an option. Those are very rare.
14 Oct 1994
[email protected]
fordnatics
Yesterday, I wrote:
> Stainless Steel Brakes has a very bizarre brake line made up for this
> exact function, in fact, that takes the 10mm ISO flare and tees it to
> a line that fits the 1/2-20 SAE flare on the SVO MC and the 3/8-24 SAE
> flare on your '88 prop valve. By far the easiest thing would be to
> call them and have them second-day-air the line to you!
All this is still true, with one exception (that points out a long-standing
error in BTPP that I only just corrected last night, after breaking out my MC
and measuring it). The primary port on the SVO MC is actually 9/16-18. It's
almost impossible to find this flare nut, at least set up for 3/16" tubing.
That size is usually used for 1/4" tubing.
In any case, if you are going to do this mod without buying someone's kit of
parts, you'd be well advised to start scrounging for this stinkin' flare nut
well ahead of time. It's available through Ford dealers, but never in a hurry.
It can take some weeks, and it can be very frustrating to have the car just
sit there because of something this trivial...
Sorry about that. When you type that many characters, _some_ of 'em are bound
to be wrong.
14 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 14, Chris Behier wrote:
> ...and the 107 or so Cobra R's came with the now '94GT 17"
> wheels. Lots of '94 suspension parts and ideas came from the
> Cobra/Cobra R.
Nope. Remember that the lead time for chassis and major body pieces (like
those forged front spindles) is probably 3-4 years from the word "go" to first
customer delivery. So the SVT folks had access to late prototype and early
production ramp SN-95 parts, destined for cars that wouldn't see the light of
day for another year or two, and realized that they could make use of them for
the Cobra R with only a few minor tweeks. So many of the trick parts that went
into the Cobra R were simply SN-95 parts, and were chosen based on the
performance of the many SN-95 test mules that had already been being beaten up
on the proving grounds for many miles. "Hey, we could put _this_ with _that_
and have big brakes on a Fox-3, whaddaya think?"...
Why have these long-lead-time parts just laying around, when you can use them
to cobble up a short-run "special" and make a killing on them, and maybe win
some World Challenge races with all the attendant good publicity? Don't get me
wrong- I think that the '93 Cobra R was a *marvel* of good engineering. As
Nevil Shute said "An *engineer* can do for a dollar what any fool can do for
ten...". And I would _kill_ to have one. But it's just a little bit of
revisionist history to claim that the Cobra R was somehow a technology driver.
The Cobra R cart didn't come before the SN-95 horse, so to speak. Far from it!
It was a nicely-timed, short lead time reaction to market forces, accomplished
for very little cash outlay by using as many parts from on-hand stocks
intended for current and future products as possible. It was not a prime
mover, far from it.
Just like every _other_ successful Ford "production race-car" effort that I
can think of has been, I might add. There's a message in there somewhere, and
maybe Ford will continue to act on it...
14 Oct 1994
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Oct 14, Jeff Cross wrote:
> Does anyone have the part# for this little guy or do I meander
> into the parts dept and lay out the dimensions and the guy
> looks it up (which they are not very eager to do if they will/can
> at all.)
I just talked to my Gawdly Ford Parts Counter Guy, and he gave me the
canonical answer-of-doom: "Ford no longer services individual brake line
components, period". And he's a good one, not given over to brushing me off.
If he says he can't get it, then he can't freakin' get it, and that's the end
of the story on that end.
Okay, fine. Good (and I mean _good_) hydraulic supply stores will have a good
supply of SAE tube nuts, and can probably dig this up from the back room bins,
all covered with dust and spooge, if you go stand there and ask for it with
the exact dimensions (9/16-18 SAE 45deg flare for 3/16" hard line). Less good
supply stores will tell you that it does not exist, roll their eyes at you,
and generally piss you off in that inimitable parts-counter-guy way.
Dana/Weatherhead also lists an adapter fitting (#7911) that will fit the 9/16-
18 port and adapt it down to a much more common 3/8-24 SAE flare port. I've
used this rig, once. I hate adapters. It's useful _if_ you can find a store
that knows who the heck Weatherhead is. Once again, that'll have to be a
_good_ hydraulic supply house. Royal Brass and King Bearing, both here in the
Bay Area, fall into that category. Nobody else does, though.
But the best news of all: I just got off the phone with Lauren Fix at
Stainless Steel Brake, (800) 448-7722. The stock a premade hard line/tee
assembly (the one that comes with their kit), and will sell it separately.
Part number A14250, Tee ISO-SAE for master cylinder kit, includes stainless
steel hard lines, $35. This does the whole shebang. It screws right into the
SVO MC, the 1987-93 prop valve, and the tee takes the 10mmx1 front brake line.
Prebent to the right shape. Drops right in, she says. Or they have the flare
nut alone, for $10, if you need it, but I didn't get that part number. That's
an exercise for the interested student.
If you have an '86 or earlier car, you won't need this part, since your
plumbing is radically different. Contact me directly if you need details...
What a mess Ford brake plumbing is. I'm glad I don't have to do that stuff for
a living.
17 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 13, David Shufutinsky wrote:
> I am however expreiencing a rather annoying after effect: my 94 GT now
> bottoms out in the rear when going over small - moderate bumps / road
> abstructions. Are the stock shocks too weak to hold up (the car was
> lowered about 2" in rear and springs were not cut) ?
Well, it seems to me that lowering a late-model Mustang by 2" (whether it's a
pre-93 Fox-3 or a '94-up SN-95 Fox-4) is an exercise in futility. Once you're
down 2", you have perhaps 3/4"-1" of bump travel left in the rear suspension.
If you stay with the soft stock spring rates, or anything near them, you'll be
down on the bumpstops over every bit of pea gravel or pavement ripple, just
like you are experiencing now. The only solution is to up the spring rates
pretty significantly, or better yet up the rates and up the shock's damping in
bump as well. Sounds like bumping up the shocks is your only recourse with
those springs. And it and sounds like Eibach missed on the spring rates (an
uncharacteristic gaffe, in my experience). Stiffer shocks are a band-aid *at
best* if the spring rates are wrong.
You can also experiment with the rear bumpstops, and make them either slightly
shorter and _very_ stiff (maybe urethane), or somewhat longer and softer. This
latter approach makes them part of the suspension's overall springing
strategy, as opposed to simply being safety bumpers to keep the axle from
crashing into the bodywork.
Dropping the car into the weeds will also take the rear suspension *deeply*
into the roll understeer range, which will make the car's basic understeer
even worse. All in all, not the best deal.
Suspension travel is a good thing. You really, really want to stay off the
bump stops to preserve the car's handling. It may *look* way tough by some
standards when it is slammed to that degree, but to make the suspension
continue to work properly after something that major requires a little more
thought to be invested, and a lot more compromise in the ride cushyiness, than
most casual tuners are willing to go for. Dropping 2" is an appearance
modification, and not a performance modification, unless a *lot* of thought is
put in.
18 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Richard Rybka writes:
>I would like to put some M-2300-C's in my convertible and am slightly
>worried about sag.
Those are the springs that I run in my '85 GT Convertible. Sag will not be a
problem. I think I took 1/2 coil off of the rears and fronts, but it has been
about 4 years and I am not certain (I've cut a lot of springs since those
days!).
I suggest you install the springs just as they came out of the box and drive
them a bit. Then you can go back and take a 1/2 or 3/4 (or whatever) coil off
to level the car and set the ride height where you want it. It is worth your
while to borrow a die grinder and cut off wheel for cutting springs.
Otherwise, buy the best coarse hack saw blades you can find and take your
time. front of the car off of the jackstands with one hand).
>I quit driving this on the street because I found it
>quite uncomfortable to feel my inerts jiggle around inside of me.
Sit-ups will help this. So will off road motorcycle racing. I do agree that
on nasty roads, running a CP car on the street is much less than a pleasant
experience.
The vast majority of substantial suspension harshness can be attributed to
shock valving and suspension bind, not to stiff spring rates. A Mustang with
1400 lbs front springs and Koni red struts rides quite well. A Mustang with
800 lbs front springs and yellow Koni Sports is rather brutal.
>Also, when talking to a competitor with the same kind of Camaro,
>he mentioned his motor DYNOED 592 hp and 524 ft/lbs of torque @ 7200 out of
>a little ol' 355.
Having 500 ft/lbs of torque at 6,000 RPM doesn't mean squat when you're
apexing corners at 2,500 or 3,500 RPM. It also doesn't matter if the power
comes on so suddenly that you can't maintain traction or if you have to baby
the throttle so much that you're not able to put down as much power as the guy
with 325 ft/lbs. It isn't so much the quantity of torque, but rather how much
you can *use*.
Bud Jasman's car weighs 2780 and only runs 110 mph through the traps in the
quarter. That isn't even 350 HP. But he built the engine with off the shelf
parts to make torque over a very broad range. Horsepower was absolutely
secondary. The car makes excellent (and extremely flat) torque from 2,000 to
7,000 RPM. My engine is very similar, with a bit less compression, a
different intake and a little head porting. My torque peak is a little higher
than his.
He didn't fare all that great at nationals this year (lost a tire, had
understeer problems), but that had nothing to do with peak horsepower or
torque. They were all handling issues. He is making some changes to his
engine this Winter, but those changes are to boost performance between 2,000
and 4,000.
Perhaps things are changing in CP at nationals. It used to be that the guys
with 500 or 600 HP couldn't get enough traction for it to make much
difference. If they're finally getting their suspensions right, they may have
siginificantly raised the cost to run up front. It also greatly depends on
how open the course is.
...
FYI, going back to the Hoosier tire thread we had a while ago. The Hoosiers
he ran at nationals didn't work at all. He stuck them outside his garage for
a couple of weeks and then decided to run the Toledo Divisional. He didn't
have any other tires and had to remount those. He didn't make any changes to
the car, but the tires *stuck*. All indications are that these tires did need
more cure time before Salina.
>2) Bring lots of horsepower and then bring extra on top of what you think is
> enough! (I have a 13.5 to 1 302 that puts out approx 350-380 hp and I felt
> that I was at a severe disadvantage.)
Bud's engine is only 11.7:1. The next time I talk to him, I'll ask if he
feels the killer engines are starting to dominate or if they're really
necessary. As of yesterday, he had no intention of even changing his low lift
torque cam for next season.
20 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 18, Paul Keidel wrote:
> As far as the pulleys are concerned, my alternator can't seem to put
> out more that about 10 volts at 750 RPM. When sitting, I bring the RPMs up
> to 1000 and then the voltmeter goes back up. I even reinstalled the factory
> alternator pulley.
I've been very amused by the behavior of my alternator since I completed my
Grand Rewiring and installed both a decent calibrated ammeter and a good
voltmeter. I have a crank-only underdrive pulley, so I have much the same
setup as you do. I also see some variability in the behavior of the charging
system with revs, but it seems to be a much stronger function of
*temperature*.
When the whole system is cold, it kicks out 13.5 volts and good charging
current at 750rpm, no problem at all. Once the underhood temps come up to
normal, with the electric fan I run switched off, the output voltage drops off
to about 12 volts, but there is still decent charging current. Once it gets
_hot_, even with the fan not running, output voltage drops off to right at 10
volts, and I drop into discharge, with the battery sourcing instead of sinking
current. I need to get up to about 1000rpm to see a positive charging current
when everything is toasty, just as you do.
I attribute this behavior to a temperature dependency in the voltage regulator
that slightly starves the field windings for current at high temperatures. I
suspect that this is very much the nature of the beast, as my alternator is
relatively fresh. It'd be interesting to chase it down in the circuitry, but I
haven't had either time or inclination, as my car has behaved exactly like
this for four years or so with no difficulties. It's just since I installed my
"belt and suspenders" electrical instrumentation that I've been able to watch
what was going on in some detail.
My canonical answer for this problem: if it still charges at 1000rpm, and your
driving is primarily done over 1000rpm, it's simply a non-problem. But if your
driving is mostly below 1000rpm, and you have the stereo, the heater, the rear
defogger, and the wipers and foglights cranked, you might be heading for a
brownout- and the EEC-IV shuts down altogether below about 8 volts.
Of course, if your driving is mostly below 1000rpm, whaddaya need the pulleys
for anyway?...
Good to see you back on the list, Paul. See you at the track again soon.
20 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 20, Matt Silvera wrote:
> However, when I inspected the wheel bearings
> with the "12 and 6 o'clock" tests last oil change (30k miles) I found a that
> there was lateral movement (just a *teeny tiny* amount.) Now, without a
> dial-guage I am out of luck and I need some advice:
>
> 1. Am I trashing the bearings.
> 2. Should I buy a new dial-guage and do it the right way (something I don't
> think is necessary.)
> 3. Has anyone had this experience and is it "normal?"
Good procedure. I use one similar to the one that Chucko suggested, which
involves backing all the way off and then retorquing by feel. I use just the
little finger of my right hand on a wrench. This process I have carefully
calibrated to be about 1-2 ft-lb, plus or minus. (;-). This is tighter than
the spec book calls for by a tad, but given the abuse I like to put on the car
on the track, that is in order.
However, even at this tightness, which is the upper limit of what the bearings
would prefer, there will *still be play* in the "12 and 6 o'clock" test. This
is not bearing play you're feeling, in the sense that the races shift with
respect to one another due to insiffucient preload. At least in the case of
the 5.0 Mustang (pre-94, anyway), this is caused by the clearance in the fit
of the outer bearing on the spindle snout. My experience has been that late
Ford spindles are ground quite a bit undersize in this area, like to .8610 for
a .8660 bearing bore. The more wear and circumferential marking your spindle's
snout has in this area, the more play you'll feel. And tightening it up
further won't help matters, because running the bearings too tight will just
cause the inner races to spin on the spindle, accelerating the wear and making
the play worse.
In the case of the Mustang, the slop in fit on a brand-new spindle is on the
order of the .005 I quoted above (that was from my last set of new spindles).
At the tire OD during the 12 and 6 test, that will translate to about .020,
and you'll feel that, just barely, and probably say "Oh, that's okay.". After
50k miles, the races will have "walked" around the spindle in use, and you'll
have a wear groove you can catch a fingernail on. Even with new bearings, the
slop will be up to maybe .010, and that will feel like .040-.050 at the OD of
the tire, and will feel like the bearings are positively falling out of the
car.
In tech inspection at track events, the inspectors will often send folks back
to "tighten their wheel bearings" to eliminate _all_ slop. This is almost
invariably too tight, specially on a high-mileage car. I finally got used to
running the car through the tech line with them set way too tight just to
avoid inspection hassles, and then resetting them to my satisfaction before
the first session. Then, I figured out that I'd better start replacing the
spindles for fatigue-prevention reasons at about the time they got that worn,
but that's another story.
So the chances are that you're not killing the bearings. The spindles are just
showing their age. It is, if not "normal", certainly inevitable. Getting the
preload seen by the bearings correct is the important thing, and it sounds
like you're doing a reasonable job of that.
If Ford would just grind the spindles to clearances of say .0005-.001, the
assembly would feel much better, and would unquestionably last longer (since
it'd be starting out with less play, the wear rate would be much, much lower).
But that'd cost a few extra dollars, and a "tight" no-name bearing might be
installed misadjusted, and so on. So they err on the side of the producible,
and on the side of "It'll last 100k miles well enough in average use", and we
get what we get.
21 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
I've received a lot of questions privately from folks since the December '94
issue of "Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords" hit the newsstands. This issue
features a very large article on upgrading the braking system in an '87-93
Mustang, and covers a lot of material that folks here on the list who've read
BTPP will find familiar. I thought I'd write it up here, with a few comments,
because several folks have asked what I thought of it.
It's really a pretty good survey of the two most popular upgrades that are
easily done to the Mustang's front braking system. It covers the swap for
SVO/LSC calipers and MC, and also covers the upgrade to PBR calipers with the
Baer Claw PBR kit.
They do do a pretty good job of documenting the swap for the SVO parts, and
they are even together enough to recommend using rebuilt calipers and MC for
the money savings. In fact, the article reads very much as if it was paid for
by Raybestos! But they're good folks, and they have good products, so I'll
just sort of ignore that. The photography is generally good, and the service
procedures they discuss are pretty much in order. Not too shabby.
Of course, you can tell that the author didn't actually perform the work
himself in a few places, since there are a few key omissions. For example, the
section on swapping in the SVO MC, which is one of the most time-consuming and
annoying parts of the job, is dismissed as trivial: "Installing the master
cylinder will take some patience and some special flare-end or fitting
wrenches". And later, "After bench bleeding the new master cylinder, install
it in place of the old one. Now you or the technician can hook the lines back
up to the master cylinder."
Indeed!
For some reason, reading those passages reminds me of watching Wild Kingdom as
a kid. You know, when Marlon Perkins would say something like "I'll just wait
in the blind, here, while Jim wrestles the giant anaconda...". (;-)
Still, the pictures are worth at least 500 words each. They don't mention
flaring lines, or making or obtaining the tee that's needed. But they do show
the swap, and list the major parts, and they'll probably spur some more folks
into action to improve their braking.
The section on the Baer Claws is even more minimal. It basically says "They
come assembled, just put them on the car". It omits the fact that they'll need
a different MC altogether from either the stocker or the SVO conversion. It
advocates just pounding on the spindle with a hammer to pop tie rod ends and
ball joint studs loose. Now this'll work, but a 2-jaw puller is *much* kinder
to all the parts concerned. I'm afraid that that's gonna lead a lead a lot of
readers to believe that pounding on the _stud_ is also good. Which I suppose
is is, but only if you don't care if the nut will ever go back on, or that the
steering arms stay straight...
They leave out a sizable amount of information which you'll have to stumble
onto by yourself. Which is par for the course in the space-limited magazine-
article genre. Not too shabby, all things considered. It'll make a lot of
business for the local hydraulic-tubing outfits, as people discover that the
brake lines don't exactly mate!
If you're looking for some inspiration to dive into this job, this article
will provide you an only slightly optimistic idea of what's involved. I'd have
to give them 3 skidmarks (on a 5-skidmark scale)...
There's also a hilarious sidebar on installing the Baer Racing bumpsteer kit.
This kit replaces the existing tie rod end with a teflon-lined Heim joint that
sits on an adjustable stud, and is really pretty much a track-only
modification. The Heims do wear and become sloppy much faster than a tie-rod
end in stret use, for example. They talk about it in glowing terms, but don't
mention how to measure bumpsteer or adjust it, or why you might like to.
That's left as an exercise for the interested student, I guess. But the most
fun is the pictures. They have carefully pried off the rubber boot from the
tie rod end, and *transferred it to the Heim joint* before installation.
Sorta reminds me of the little old ladies who knit sweaters for their dogs...
24 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
>Joe is right. Ford chose who got the Cobra R's. Even if you knew they
>were being built, YOU COULD NOT GET ONE. Only 107 of Ford's close
>bud's got the R. I knew before they were built that they were on the
>way. I could not get one. I was told that they were being built for a
>special, predetermined, set of customers. I am a Ford fan, but in no
>way is the Cobra R comparable to the Neon in terms of availability.
>IMHO Politics has nothing to do with the Cobra R decision.
Well Ford built and sold them at a loss so I thik that is why they didn't want
them sold to just anyone. If you showed any racing credentials at all and an
intent to race the R in sanctioned events you could get one. Of course you had
to know about it and place the order in the one week they were available. The
effort was made by Ford to get them in the hands of racers and not collectors
(who have wound up with most of them) or people that wanted them for street
use. I got a call and was offered one but I felt sure that it would not be
able to be raced anywhere, plus I didn't have a spare $25K laying around to
buy it with.
Just to answer some questions all of the parts to build a standard 93 Cobra
into an R are available. The floor pans have some differances, but the parts
that must be welded on are standard convertible parts. They are available from
junk yards or from Ford as replacements. It is not a bolt on operation, but it
can be done.
24 Oct 1994
[email protected]
Don't bother replacing the quad shocks on your '89 Mustang when you upgrade to
the Koni reds. You'll find the Koni quads are expensive and make a very
subtle difference to the handling, one that IMHO is not worth the expense if
you're plaf real-world experience for the autocrossers who contend that you
can't road race competitively without smashing parts). We also won the Putnam
CenDiv run-offs.
>The effort was made by Ford to get them in the hands of
>racers and not collectors (who have wound up with most of them) or people
>that wanted them for street use.
One was for sale in Colorado for about $20K. It was very well prepped
(by a well known and experienced team) for A Sedan racing (but it had
never been raced). It was a great deal.
25 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
Just finished up what will probably be the last track event of the season for
the Northern California area. Green Flag Driving Association had rented
Thunderhill Park for the weekend, and I went up to play driving instructor and
wring out the car. I had a good time, got to play bachelor since Cindy had to
work all weekend, got in a fair amount of seat time, met some new folks, tore
up the car a bit. All in all, a very good weekend.
This was to be the first outing for the big brake setup on my much-abused '86
GT, since I cratered an axle bearing after only two laps at the last event and
had no opportunity to gather any useful data. I had just installed the Cobra
R/Corvette PBR calipers on 12.25" x 1.185" rotor-on-hats on the front, and the
SVO Mustang/LSC 54mm calipers on the rear on 11" x 1.1" rotors-on-hats (my old
front setup).
I was planning on doing some suspension tuning on the car, but (as usual), the
time required to run around and play driving instructor made it difficult to
accomplish much. I need to either take an event and not instruct, or just go
off to Sears Point for open testing, to really get a lot of tuning done. I had
made several changes, most noticeably changing over to the SN-95 spindles with
their attendant geometric changes, bumpsteering the car, and going to the
Suspension Techniques .875" rear antiroll bar.
All in all, the tweaks were very much what I had hoped. The net effect of all
the changes: I took 1.5 seconds off my best lap time up there. The SN-95
spindles produce a much lighter steering feel, in fact almost too light. The
change in Ackerman in the steering (from *very* negative to just negative) is
a win, and the car points in sharply at turn-in. The bumpsteer changes went a
bit too far, I think, as the car picked up a bit of transitional oversteer,
tucking the nose in more than I was really comfortable with at turn-in. That's
easily fixed, and I'll just do a better job dialing it in next time.
The dominant steady-state cornering attitude of the car is still understeer,
though, and I'm a bit annoyed about that. I'll have to make more major
renovations to the front suspension for next season to dial out some more of
the understeer. And maybe, just maybe, some more power to liven up the rear...
The rear was just glued with the torque arm suspension, and spent the whole
weekend dutifuly following the front, with nary a hint of a sidestep or
pendulum. I would need about half again as much power to really be able to
break away the rear end with the throttle. The larger rear bar was a win, and
still isn't enough.
In the highest-speed corner on the track (turn 1), I could carry full throttle
at the apex with the inside front wheel dangling up several inches off the
ground, and just feel the suspension bottom out on the bump stops on the
outside rear over the bumps. The roll couple is _all_ scrod at the moment. I
need about 100lb more rear spring, I think, so for next season it'll be 450lb
springs and the big rear bar, and I'll stay with my 750-850 progressive front
springs and go to a softer front bar, either the SN-95 part or one of the old
6-cylinder 1.125" or 1.0" bars. I'll also be relocating the front control arms
for a significantly raised front roll center, and some anti-dive, while I'm at
it.
Now, for the bad news. I had the right front strut fail (Koni Yellows), again,
probably in the high-speed Turn 2. The gland seal failed and the strut lost a
sizeable portion of its oil, which liberally striped the wheel well and the
belly of the car. This let the car essentially "fall over" on the right side
suspension as the bump damping faded, which overloaded the outer shoulder and
blistered it up pretty well over the course of Saturday's running. It also
applied enough leverage to the left side front antiroll bar mount that it
essentially tore it about 80% off the frame rail, and split the frame rail for
about 12 inches. So there'll be a little bit of flame-wrenching to do there to
make repairs. After that happened, the car was much happier turning right than
turning left, so the rest of the weekend was spent stroking along at 7/10s and
enjoying the instructor role. And Koni will be replacing yet another strut for
me, looks like.
The good news is that the braking setup works like a champ. I was incredibly
pleased with the balance, and at the complete lack of braking drama all
weekend. Rotor temps never exceeded 1100degF, pad wear was minimal (.045
front, .030 rear), and rotor wear was nearly nonexistent (.025 front, .005
rear). This was with Cool Carbon carbon/kevlar pads up front, and Carbomet
pads in the rear. Optimum prop valve setting was right in the middle of the
range, due to the hardness stagger in the pad compounds (the Cf is .48 for the
front, .34 for the rear).
It was really a thing of beauty to be able to bludgeon the brakes all weekend
and not have to be continually fiddling with them, let me tell you. Because
of this, I didn't get a chance to run the Performance Friction 90-compound
street/race pads at all. Next time, for sure.
Just as Brian Kelley has said: Watch for Ford SVO to introduce part number M-
2300-K right at the first of the year, which will be the complete front and
rear PBR brake setup for the '79-93 Mustangs. It will have *every single part*
needed, from the nuts, bolts, cables, and lines up through the spindles,
axles, calipers, MC, and even the booster, to upgrade your car to the 5-lug
13" PBR setup. Don Walsh at SVO ordered 200 kits worth of parts for the first
load of those, so they'll go *fast*. You might want to put in a preemptive
order at your local Ford Motorsport dealer, if you have a really good
relationship with them and can make them understand that this part number
doesn't exist in their database yet, but it will _Real Soon Now_...
For those of use with sizeable investments in 16" wheels that can't
accommodate the full 13" rotor, it is very easy and still very effective to
just cut down the rotor OD and slot the spindles to acommodate a 12.25" OD
rotor. That will fit under every 16" wheel I've encountered, including the
stock 5-spokes, and is a definite win.
One spooky incident bears mentioning here. A long time Nor Cal SAAC
member with a very tidy 289 Cobra managed to roll his car. Normally,
...
street snake did not. The driver survived with amazingly minor injuries, but
the chilling sight of that car sliding along inverted with the top surfaces of
the bonnet and the boot flush on the pavement, and no sign of the driver, will
stay with most of the folks who saw it for a long time. I have since held his
helmet in my hands, and can attest to the fact that _good_ helmets save lives.
Had he had a roll bar, that chances are good that he would have escaped
uninjured. As it is, he's very lucky indeed to be alive. For those of you who
like to drive hard in open cars with no safety equipment, here's a clue: it
_can_ happen to you. Any questions?
Thanks to Kevin and Scott for the wrenching help, Heidi for the sandwiches,
and Borys for loaning me $20 (which I already repaid), and a big "Hello, and
thanks for coming up!" to all the list folks who made it up there for the
first time. Now, for the offseason, which is *way* too long, and yet too short
to get everything done...
26 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 26, Kevin Gregg wrote:
> Anyway, my understanding of "bump steer" is the tendency for road
> imperfections to cause a slight change in the cars' direction of
> travel. Am I close on this? Assuming that I am close, how do the
> aftermarket tie rod ends minimize or eliminate this problem? Thanks.
And Randy Whitten wrote:
> What type/size rod-ends do I need to buy, etc. ...Does it clean up
> the bump steer? And finally, what do I need to install them? Is
> there a special tool of some sort to remove rod-ends?
Lots of interest here, so I'll talk about it for a minute. First of
all, what is bump steer?
Bump steer is caused by the fact that the lower control arms and the tie rods
move through differing arcs as the suspension travels. As the suspension goes
into bump or droop, this difference in arcs causes the steering angle of the
wheel to change, thus "bump steer". Uncommanded steering actions like this
lead to a very vague feel in the steering. In the stock suspension (at least
on my car!), there was a certain amount of bump oversteer, which causes the
car to try and point more deeply into the turn as the body rolls (which puts
the outside suspension into bump, and the inside into droop).
This condition causes the outside tire to go more into toe-in as it goes into
bump, the inside tire to go toe-out as it goes into droop, and combined with
stock alignment settings, contributes greatly to the somewhat schizophrenic
nature of the car's handling feel as delivered.
Now just for grins, let's look at a car that has been slammed, say 2 inches.
It is already _way_ into the bump range, so it is already toed-in a bit. That
can be fixed by resetting the static toe-in. Problem is, the rate at which
increasing suspension travel affects toe increases dramatically with travel,
since we're now a _long_ way from the null in the curve! So a little roll adds
a _bunch_ of bump oversteer, _much_ more than it would at stock ride height.
Added to the fact the the rear suspension, when lowered, now has a bucketload
of roll _understeer_, and the fact that the bumpstops are right there waiting
to disrupt smooth suspension movement, it's easy to see why excessively
slammed cars usually handle worse, and often much worse, than their stock
counterparts. This leaves folks scratching their heads quite often.
Okay, what to do? Ideally, suspension travel would have exactly zero effect on
steer angle. In practice, this is impossible to achieve, and it's even worse
when you consider that optimizing it for straight-ahead driving will move it
off the optimum for when the car has some deliberate driver-commanded steer
angle (say, 10deg). But we can sure help matters out tremendously, compared to
stock.
The first of the bump steer kits (CCM, Saleen, BBK) involved offset steering
rack mount bushings, and dropped tie rod ends. The raised the rack, and
lowered the tie-rod pickup at the steering arm, and moved the tie rod to be
somewhat closer to parallel with the lower control arm. While not perfect, it
was, and is, a *very* cost-effective improvement. If you have a post-91 car,
you already have the dropped tie rod ends, as Ford adopted them for production
as a handling improvement.
The problem with normal tie rod ends is that they are non-adjustable in the
vertical direction. The stud that mates with the steering arm is a 7 degree
taper, and once they are tightened down, they stay put, unless you have a 2-
jaw puller to press them out. Ford has two different tie rod ends with two
different stud lengths, and that was all the tuning range you had. But this
was a solved problem for the circle track guys, who long ago had tooled up for
a fix.
Several companies (Coleman, Lefthander Chassis) make a tapered ball-joint stud
that mates with the steering arm taper, and provides a straight threaded shank
on the far end. This shank accepts a 5/8" Heim joint and a stack of spacers
that allow nearly arbitrary resolution in setting the exact center of the tie-
rod end with respect to the lower ball joint, and allow you to set the null in
the bump-steer curve to occur *precisely* at your static ride height (or
wherever else you might want it). These studs form the basis of the standard
Baer kit. The kit includes spacers (a large application specific spacer, and
.250, .125, .062, .032 shim spacers), the Heims, and the adapter sleeves to
connect the threaded shank on the Heim to your inner tie rods. This is one
stop shopping, just bolts right on, and is fine as far as it goes. It is
definitely an improvement over simply choosing between "short" and "long".
Now, never being one to leave well enough alone, and being a paranoid sod to
boot, I went off and made my own. Since I was going to the SN-95 spindles, the
spacer dimensions I would need would be radically different than the Baer kit
provided at the time, since the steering arm is dropped 3mm and relocated
outboard 6mm and my rack had been moved significantly. Also, I wanted to avoid
the use of the tapered stud mount altogether, so I got rid of it. I drilled
and reamed the steering arms to be a very tight (.005) fit on a tight-
tolerance 160,000psi AN10 (5/8") airframe bolt, and obtained my own adjustment
and shim spacers from some of the circle-track catalogs. I also used a big
safety washer on the end to retain the assembly in case the Heim someday
decided to fail due to my normal abuse.
The coupler sleeves I had a machinist buddy do for me. They are 4" long, 9/16-
18 UNF on the inner end, and 5/8-18 UNF on the outer end for the Heim. I had
to shorten the inner tie rods by 1/2" to get it all to fit up, so you might
have to as well. did I save any money by doing them myself? Debatable. But I
got what _I_ wanted.
If you do this, use the best Teflon-lined Heims you can get, and they will
last much longer without developing play. Also, *don't* use a farmer bolt
(Grade 5 or Grade 8 SAE bolt) to replace that nice heat-treated stud. Farmer
bolts have undersized shanks, which makes a good fit nearly impossible to
achieve, and the Grade 8s are too brittle to even consider for this difficult
single-shear-plus-bending application. Use a _good_, tough, tight-tolerance
bolt with the right grip length (no threads in any shear plane!), since this
is a somewhat critical application. I paid $5.50 per bolt for the aircraft
stuff for cowling pin, and use both a shear nut _and_ a castellated nut locked
with the pin to make sure that sucker stays torqued in this nasty bending-load
environment.
One other very important thing. I use tapered spacers to prevent the Heim from
ever running out of angulation capability (read, bind!) over *any* combination
of bump, droop, and steer angle. In the worst case, bind can result in a
broken Heim, and an instantaneous loss of steering control. This applies
regardless of whether you make it yourself or use the Baer kit. You _must_
check this when you assemble it.
Whew. Now, I can control the exact location of the tie rod's outer end to +-
.032". I can set the car up on blocks with the springs out and adjust until
the first inch of suspension travel in either bump or droop results in as near
as possible to zero toe change, and I'm done.
It is very important to note that this is a very *individual* adjustment. To
get it optimized for your car, the car needs to be at its static ride height
with the driver's weight in the seat, and thus it will be different for _every
car_. It will be radically different for pre-87 cars, '87-93 cars, and SN95s.
It will be radically different based on your choice of springs, and whether or
not you've moved the rack. Thus, one-stop-shopping may not get you to the
optimum for _your_ car. For example, using the standard Baer Fox-3 kit with
my SN-95 spindles would have got me almost .4" toe-out with 1" of bump travel.
That's far worse than stock.
Baer also offers other kits, more similar to my setup, for folks who have gone
over to a modified K-frame with altered lower arm pickup points, or other
radical suspension mods. But that's another story. You have to know what you
want, and why, to get those. But then, you wouldn't be reading _this_...
One last point. If you still have the soft stock bushings in place, there's
some debate over whether or not you could even feel the difference! The simple
offset bushing/long tie rod end fix may be more than enough for you. This
tweak makes little sense for a near-stock street car, and is *far* from the
first thing I would do. But if you're well on your way to stiffening up the
suspension, and making the car into a track or autox stormer, this issue will
start to become perceptible. Fixing it will make the car altogether more
enjoyable and predictable up near its limits.
Sorry for the length. Hope that helps...
27 Oct 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 26, Dan Malek wrote:
> Aside from the safety and any legal issues, and mechanical differences
> due to the steering columns, the EEC-IV (somehow) has an air bag diagnostic.
> Removal of the air bag will cause the EEC-IV to always store a
> diagnostic code, and illuminate the error warning light.
Are you sure about this? According to the shop manuals, the air bag system has
its own separate diagnostic module, and its own separate error indicator (the
air bag light). If something screws up and the air bag diagnostic module
detects it, it will blink codes on the air bag indicator. The EEC-IV should
remain blissfully unaware of any air bag problem, as a result, so you
shouldn't see any air-bag related codes in it.
Folks who run their air bag equipped cars with the SCCA in Showroom Stock
racing are required to remove their air bags, to prevent accidents caused by
unnecessary deployment due to sensor failure or vigorous driving. Having the
bag go off in your face when cornering at 10/10s is a great way to make a trip
to the tirewall, and yes, that did happen a few times before they figured it
out.
If you have good belts, the air bag is a liability. On the other hand, if you
have a car with motorized-bug belts that encourage you to not use the manual
lap belt, or can't be bothered to use belts at all, the bag can be a
lifesaver. Even so, it's far from being a safety panacea. If I were to buy a
new car for my own use that had crummy belts and a bag, both the belts and the
bag would be in the scrap heap ASAP, and would be replaced with proper
harnesses and a comfortable steering wheel, regardless of any legal issues
involved. But that's just me. YMMV.
The procedures listed in the manual for removing and replacing the air bag
system are very explicit, and very detailed. In particular, the safing
procedures must be followed, or you could well end up with a faceful of bag
and a ringing in your ears. In fact, the manual recommends firing the bag
before removing it, to keep from having a sodium azide hand grenade laying
around the shop.
I won't detail the removal procedure here, other than to say that you need the
manuals. The system has been designed to be as foolproof as possible, so it
maintains a local energy source (a big capacitor) that can fire the bag even
if the battery is disconnected. It's best that you get the info on how to safe
it stright from the source.
31 Oct 1994
[email protected]
fordnatics
There were over 300 line-item differences between the 1993 Cobra and
the 1993 Cobra "R". The major differences are:
rear seat deletion
radio delete
air conditioning delete
major sound insulation delete
floor pan reinforecement (ala convertible)
windshield cowl reinforcment (ala convertible)
engine cooling fan clutch (recalibrated)
external air-to-oil cooler
strut tower brace
delete power windows/locks
external power steering cooler
fog lamp and mounting bracket delete
tubular bumper reinforcment
high rate springs
KONI double adjustable struts and shocks
17" x 8" wheels (ala '94 GT but with black centers)
full size spare
13" front brakes and 10.5" rear brakes
low-back front bucket seats with reinforced "police" seat backs
larger 5.0L water pump pulley
unique serpentine belt
unique cooling system with purge tank and aluminum radiator
delete front fender liners
no QC warranty
modified tie rod ends
modified rack and pinion
There are more. Wait 'till you see the differences in the 1995 Cobra
"R"! Jim Dingell Mustang Dynamics
31 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
What should the voltage at the Throttle Position Sensor be at idle? Should
it be something like .97 volts?
The nominal spec is something like 0.9-1.1 volts. 0.97 V is just about
perfect. Note that this should be set with the key on but the engine
not running, as the EEC-IV reads this value at startup and sets its idea
of when the throttle is closed from this voltage.
31 Oct 1994
[email protected] (Greg Powers)
fordnatics
My speedometer problem questions have been answered. Thanks to all who
responded. The possible solutions appear to be as follows:
1) Use a QUALITY 23-tooth tooth gear ($15), and replace it every 10K miles to
avoid drive gear problems, or
2) Get a 2-piece speedometer cable with a reducer box (about $100, and I've
already had one of these break) or..
3) Change the speedometer drive gear from an 8 tooth to a 7 tooth (cost ???)
How much grief is involved in changing the speedometer drive gear in a T-5?
Would this cost serious $$$?
07 Nov 1994
[email protected] (Clifton Koch)
[email protected]
After I mentioned the Kenne-Bell supercharger in a previous post, a few
people sent me a note asking about it, so I'll post a little writeup I did
awhile back. This is pretty disjointed, and I've added a bit, so it's even
a bit more so now. If you have any specific questions, let me know.
I have a lot of random thoughts about the Kenne Bell supercharger. I'll try
to get as many as I can think of put down. If you should decide to buy one of
these at some point, send me a note and I'll try and put together some
installation tips. As is common with a lot of performance parts, the
installation manual leaves a bit to be desired, though it was better than
most.
Ok, first of all: Why Kenne Bell? My car is only street driven so far.
I've wanted to get into some road racing, but haven't found the time (yet).
I used to run nitrous. I was never happy with the primitive way the kit
metered fuel, having to fill up the bottle, and all of the assorted plumbing
necessary to make it streetable (remote shutoff valves, purge valves, etc).
For the drag strip nitrous is probably great, but not for the street. I also
more or less wanted the feel of a big block under the hood without all the
weight and I wanted to keep a reasonable milage range to the car. I also do
not want want to have to rev the car up to 4K+ to get boost out of it. All
this adds up to a positive displacement supercharger. The Kenne-Bell is
one of very few of these around for the Mustang, especially without adding
hood scoops and totally destroying gas milage. It also seemed to be one of
the more efficient of the SCs.
Installtion of the KB is probably quite a bit tougher than the centrifugal
types (Vortech, Paxton, B&M, etc). The centrifugals sit off to the side of
the engine like a big alternator, where as the KB takes the place of the
upper intake manifold of EFI engines. If you car has AC, the system will
need to be discharged so that the hoses and brackets can be modified to
relocate the compresser further to the side. My car has convertible motor
mounts installed, which causes the engine to sit higher and has the SC snout
*very* close to the hood. There is a support bracket towards the back of
the engine which is pretty tough to get in correctly. Again, if you plan
on getting one of these, talk to me before installing it for some tips.
I've seen several messages in the past saying the KB has sealing problems
with the lower intake manifold because of all of the SC weight hanging off
to one side. I've had no problems with that, and don't expect to have any
either. Perhaps the early kits didn't have all the bracketing that mine does.
The SC discharge manifold is bolted to the stock intake upper, but these bolts
are not reponsible for supporting the weight/torque of the SC. The SC snout
has a very sturdy aluminum bracket with very tight tolerances around the
snout that is mounted to the accessory brackets. The rear left of the SC has
a bracket which is connected to the back header bolt. The rear bracket is a
real pain to install, and I didn't agree with the way KB said to mount it,
so I promptly ignored the instructions and did it *my* way (the correct way,
of course :-). The three mounting points form a sort of triangular arangement
to hold up the SC. The rear bracket is sort of wimpy, but it shouldn't be
under any major stresses and shouldn't be a problem.
I really haven't beat on my car too much because of some detonation problems
I've been having. I do not blame the supercharger for the problems. I blame
the PRO-M MAF meter calibration. I had some light detonation before installing
the SC on 93 octane gas and stock timing, which shouldn't happen, so there
were problems before the installation. The increased intake charge temperature
from the SC just aggravated them. I'm currently working on fixing this. For
me, the detonation occurs during mid throttle and low RPMs (<2500). At either
low power, high power, or high RPMs the problems don't occur. I believe the
problems don't occur at high power because of the fuel enrichment caused by
the return line cutoff which happens when boost cuts in.
Now that the weather has turned cool, the car is running very well.
Detonation is very light at the worst (though timing is retarded a bit), and
it's really shoving me back in the seat at virtually any RPM. It's really
a cool feeling to shove the car into third at ~2000 RPM, give it some gas and
be shoved back into the seat. I rarely floor the car, as it just isn't
necessary much, and I'm traction limited until 3rd. I've been noticing my
posi hasn't been acting too posi-like lately, so it's probably a goner.
The car has 42K on it, so I'm not too upset. I'll have to look into that
after I get the torque arm installed.
As for power, the car is much faster than it was before, even with
retarded timing and a probably less than perfect mixture. Something I've
noticed that's sort of interesting is that around 0" of vacuum, there
really isn't that much power, so the tuned port intake upper does do a
lot for low end torque (the SC upper is open plenum). This is not to say
that the car is slower at lower RPMs. When boost kicks in, you get a lot
more power than before. I've never really driven a big block car, but it
has to be a lot like this, where when you stomp on it the car just pulls the
front end up and takes off. I had to hop from a lane moving around 20 mph
to one moving around 60 the other day and saw a narrow opening coming up. I
put the car in second and feathered the clutch a bit when jumping over to
keep the RPMs up a bit and out of the dreaded detonation zone. I don't know
what the time was, but I went from 20 to 60 awfully fast and never seemed to
get more than about 20 ft behind the vehical in front of me. Once I clean up
the fuel and timing curves to something a little more optimum, th
...
14 Nov 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
On Nov 14, 13:58, Christopher Bethel wrote:
> In the next couple of days I'll be replacing the front brake
> rotors and bearings on my '84 SVO. I've got a set of the Ford
> Motorsports rear brake pads now, but I'm trying to find comparable
> pads for the front. In the Motorsports book they seem to only
> have front pads for the 5.0's. Any suggestions?
The pads for '87 to '93 5.0 Mustangs will work on your SVO just fine. A number
of us have upgraded our 5.0 cars to the SVO/LSC front calipers, and typically
use pads intended for the cars' original calipers. The pads' dimensions are
the same except for how the anti-rattle springs/clips are attached to the
driven pad.
Pads made for the 5.0 cars have a three-pronged clip tacked onto the back of
the driven pad's backing plate that slips into the piston. For the LSC/SVO,
the backing plates have indentations on the side for a two-pronged clip to be
snapped-on to do the same job. Installing the "5.0" pads on SVO/LSC calipers
requires you to remove the three-pronged clip (by breaking them off with some
pliers). Installation is slightly trickier, as you now have to place the
driven pad in place on the spindle and fit the caliper assembly around it.
Some care is needed, as the remains of the clips could potentially damage the
boots on the pistons.
The loss of the anti-rattle clips isn't too big a deal in my opinion. The
brakes rarely make any noise in normal driving (at least, not that I can hear
over the sound of loose trim rattling ;-)
BTW, what are the Ford Motorsport pads running, and do you know what kind of
compound they are (e.g. metallic, carbon, metallic, etc.)? The Ford pads could
very well be repackaged pads from a different vendor, and you may be able to
get them for less. El-cheapo (no noise, little dust, wear fast, great-when-
cold and ok-when-hot) carbon-metallic pads can be had for in the vicinity of
$30-$40 a set. Better (little noise, some dust, wear longer, better when hot)
pads can be had for around $70. More exotic stuff, like carbon-kevlar, will
run $130 and up.
For street use, the carbon metallics are a very good choice. If you don't
seriously abuse the breaks (e.g. track use), you'll likely never get them hot
enough to see their weak points. In fact, Performance Friction has (or at
least had) their street-compound carbon-metallics available with the correct
anti-rattle springs for your calipers. You have to know what to ask for,
however; the pads were made for police LTD's, and don't list a Mustang
application. They do fit fine, as I can attest having had them on my car
since September. I can get the part number if you want.
15 Nov 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> I tried doing the same thing with my 86 GT (with T-tops though) and
> about fainted when the local Ford dealer told me what the price was.
> I don't recall the number, but it was well in the three digits for
> both sides of the car. I do remember they need your build date (at
> least in my case) so they can get the right set of stripping for your
> car.
I'd highly recommend that you folks obtain the catalog from "Cleassic Corral",
which is a late model Mustang business out here in California. They list the
weatherstripping you need for $17.50 per side for the door glass seals, $27.95
for the glass/door frame seals, and $31.00 for the door/body seals per side.
Yes, it's pricey, but they'll probably do better for you than your local
dealer. Making your own will be hard, given the nasty heat/ozone invironment
that the seals (and worse yet, the _glue_!) have to endure...
The best thing about their catalog is that it's nicely illustrated and
contains the Ford part numbers for all the interesting bits. It can serve as a
sort of "poor man's microfiche" in this respect. They are also a Motorsport
dealer, and they stock a great selection of body parts (skins, hoods, bumbers,
bumper supports, and so on) for the restorer.
You can get in touch with them at (800)577-5566. They are in the process of
moving, as they and their sister company (Sacramento Mustang, who are purveyor
of interesting parts for classic Mustangs) are moving into a single expanded
warehouse.
I have no relationship with the company other than as a customer, and through
my car club events where the principals show up and run their cars. But the
couple of times that I have needed an odd frob, and my Gawdly Counter Guy
couldn't get it quick enough, they have had it. If nothing else, the part
number reference in the catalog is well worth the phone call...
Also, on the topic of recycled Ford parts such as doors and the like. I have
had good luck with Ford Auto Recyclers in Rancho Cordova, CA (800)720-2929),
and Menard's Automotive in Chester, NH (603)887-4049. I have also heard good
things about Mathis Motorsport Salvage in Georgia, (706)694-3825, but have
never done any busniess with them directly. Don't give up the hunt just yet.
There are a _lot_ of sources for this stuff, and a lot of bent cars being
parted out...
30 Nov 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Nov 30, Richard Pedersen wrote:
> I'm trying to understand just what is going on here. My system is plagued
> with problems and I'm sick of it puking fluid on the under side of the hood
> and strut tower area. I'm thinking of going with the Cobra-R setup or
> something similar.
Whoa! What I was talking about in that message was the cooling system, not the
power steering system. The Cobra R cooling system header tank is located next
to the power steering pump out of convenience, but the two systems aren't
related.
The Cobra R uses a small finned cooler located in the left front foglight
cutout for PS fluid cooling, and otherwise the PS system is pretty
unremarkable, and practically identical to the stock Mustang arrangement. I
have one of those coolers on my car, and it has finally solved the problem of
melting the dipstick in the PS fluid reservoir for me during long hot-weather
sessions. Using the ATF cooler tank in a radiator equipped for automatic-
transmission cooling is also very functional.
Now, PS fluid puking is pretty easily handled. I drilled my reservoir cap,
epoxied in a hose barb, and installed a 3/8" line to my underhood puke tank.
This 1-quart tank catches any potential overflow from the coolant recovery
system tank, and also catches anything that comes back from the PS pump. I
located it in the forward part of the old battery shelf space. Tha battery
moved to the back seat a long time ago, and the remote oil filter is in the
middle of the old spot it occupied, leaving a nice clear spot for the puke
tank as well.
The Bondurant school cars took another tack. They simply sawed off the filler
neck about an inch down from the top, and then spliced it back on to the pump
body using a 6" length of the appropriately sized silicone radiator hose! That
roughly doubled the fluid capacity of the system, and helps them with their
heat problems. They still have to run a puke tank for the overflow, though.
> At a minimum, I'm going to try replacing the fluid. Does anyone know the
> best way to get out all the old fluid and replace it with new? How much
> fluid should it take for a complete flush/fill? I've heard synthetic ATF
> works well. Any differing opinions?
It takes 1.6 pints, according to the book. More, if you have a cooler. But
plan on running a couple of quarts through it to complete the purge. In the
past, with my underdrive setup, I've simply capped the reservoir return port
with the car up on jack stands, directed the ret
...
01 Nov 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Nov 1, Gary Krasche wrote:
> What IS the lowest battery voltage that the typical Mustang engine
> will continue to run at?
The solid-state voltage regulator internal to the EEC-IV box drops out of
regulation once you get under 8 volts. However, given the voltage-discharge
curve of a lead-acid battery, that'll happen pretty abruptly. The EEC will
shut down entirely, and stop issuing spark events (as well as turning off the
fuel pump!) right around 8 volts. This is why you can easily get into a
situation where a weakening battery can crank the motor, but it won't fire.
There is some question about the integrity of the spark at voltages in the 8-
10 range, as well, as the coil isn't getting the kick that it would like. The
whoile system is designed for a minimum of 12 volts, and it is very good
practice to keep that voltage up.
Oh, by the way. You drag racers that like to run total-loss ingnition systems,
to eliminate the engine drag of the alternator? Be aware that the fuel pump
output is directly proportional to the supply voltage! So, if the pump
delivers enough to keep you from burning down your pistons with a nitrous-
induced lean condition at 12.5 volts, it may let you lean _way_ out as the
battery goes flat. Just thought you'd like to know...
01 Nov 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Scott Griffith writes:
>The EEC will shut down entirely, and stop issuing spark
>events (as well as turning off the fuel pump!) right around 8 volts.
FWIW, a source who works with the EEC-IV reports that the shutdown voltage is
actually 5 volts (obviously, you're pretty SOL if you're getting down to 8).
He reports that the injectors are 12 volt devices. The EEC constantly
monitors the system voltage and increases injector firing duration to deliver
the correct amount of fuel. Pretty neat! I wonder who got that patent.
BUT, how does the fuel delivery curve of a 24 lbs/hr or 30 lbs/hr injector
change with reduced voltage compared to a 19 lbs/hr injector? The EEC more
than likely grabs the correction value from a stored table. I expect they use
the injector calibration/flow data to determine the values for the chart. I
don't know if they're significantly different.
This is one more little detail they try and control in the interest of
drivability, consistency and emissions. And one more minor detail that won't
be quite right when you throw different injectors at the car :-(
01 Nov 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> ...my other option was to get some solid
> aluminum motor mounts from Auto Specialties. I would suppose that
> they would raise the motor up a bit, but this would (?) give me a
> slightly higher center of gravity. Would this be significant enough to
> do harm (for autox)?
I doubt that the increase in CG height would be noticeable, let alone
earthshaking. it's not that new mounts raise the motor, it's that your old
mounts have sacked out and let it drop! You'll just be putting it back where
it ought to be.
However, I'd like to suggest one alternative short of the solid mounts. Solid
mounts really have no place in a car that pretends to be streetable (yes,
that's right, even I have my limits!). I'd recommend that you spend a few
dollars more and get the motor mounts from the convertibles. These are still
rubber isolatedmounts, but the rubber is designed in a much more stable and
long-lived configuration. As a result they are much stiffer, but still
slightly compliant. In particular, they'll keep the instrument panel and
bodywork forward of the A-pillars from shaking themselves apart. Many of us
have these and are very pleased with the results.
The part numbers for the convertible mounts are E3ZZ-6038-D for the right
side, and -E for the left side. Check with your Ford dealer.
If it's just a trailered track car, then by all means bolt 'er in there. But
if you get groceries in it now and again, the solid mounts will transmit a
_huge_ amount of powertrain noise right into the tub. This is not something to
take lightly!
01 Nov 1994
[email protected]
On Nov 1, Ken Neher wrote:
> Anyone know how to check trouble codes for my 83 Crown Vic with EEC III?
> I can find no info in the factory manuals. Are their even trouble codes
> to check?
Yes, there are. The best writeup on the EEC-III troubleshooting and diagnosis
that I have found in the aftermarket is "How to Tune And Modify Ford Fuel
Injection", Ben Watson, 1992, published by Motorbooks International, Osceola
Wisconsin, ISBN 0-87938-621-5, $19.95.
Of course, the _right_ answer is to call up Helm Incorporated (313 865 5000)
and get the shop manuals, including the Emissions and Diagnosis manual (H
manual) for your car. For that year, you'll probably be out $100 for them, but
they will pay for themselves if you keep the car.
The long and the short of it is that the EEC-III codes are sent out to the air
pump control solenoids. You can connect a test light, a voltmeter or what have
you to them, and get the codes there. Eugene Chu (who worked on this software,
back when the earth was still cooling) posted one time that experienced users
just listened to the clicking of the solenoids, and dispensed entirely with
the meters and so forth.
Watson says, paraphrasing: Disconnect the air pump control solenoids; these
can be found by tacing the vacuum lines fron the valves located on the air
pump. Check for voltage on each of the wires, one of the two wires on each
solenoid should have 12 volts on it full time. Reconnect the wires, and
connect a test light to one of the wires that did not have 12 volts. Connect a
hand-held vacuum pump to the vent side of the B/MAP (Barometric/Manifold
Absolute Pressure) sensor. Start the engine. Apply 20in vacuum to the sensor,
and hold for 30 seconds. Release the vacuum. After about 30 seconds, the test
light will blink out 2 digit codes. Code 11 indicates that no problem was
found during testing.
There aren't many codes.
Code 21- engine coolant temp over 250 or under 50degF
Code 22- B/MAP signal missing or out of range
Code 23- TP sensor out of range (under.39, over 8.84v)
Code 31- EGR/EVP sensor voltage lower than expected
Code 32- EGR/EVP out of position (suspect sticking EGR valve)
Code 41- EGO sensor voltage low (lean)
Code 42- EGO sensor voltage high (rich)
Code 43- EGO indicates running lean at WOT (low fuel pressure?)
Code 44- Thermactor air system not working (air pump, air valves,
solenoids)
That's all I know, but that should get you started. To really debug those
suckers *properly*, you'll need the H manual for your car from Helm. Any other
aftermarket book is just a stopgap.
01 Nov 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Nov 1, Kristin Brown wrote:
> read my codes this past weekend. Got an 87: FP relay circuit failure-
> suspect intertia switch, fusible link, FP relay.
> What should i look at first? figuring this is probably related to the
> fact that after driving over an hour averaging over the speed limit, the
> car has been dying all of a sudden.
This is the first time that I've heard of Code 87 being useful.
Congratulations! Usually, it's a nuisance code that folks who do a Mass Air
upgrade on a speed-density car get, since most of the older speed-density
wiring harnesses didn't have this circuit implemented, but the conversion
processors expect it to be there. In your case, it is leading you right to the
source of your problem.
Briefly, what it means is that the EEC-IV has detected the fuel pump being
shut off during operation. In the '89 cars, the fuel pump monitor circuit (pin
19) is connected to the switched (load) side of the fuel pump relay. It should
always see the +12v fuel pump motor supply whenever the EEC-IV commands the
fuel pump to run. This is basically any time the ignition is on and the TFI
module says that the motor is turning over.
If the fuel pump somehow gets turned off, the EEC-IV notices this and sets
Code 87. Somehow, when your car quits on you, the relay is dropping out and
shutting off the fuel pump. Your job is to find that intermittent and fix it.
I'd start with the fuel pump relay itself, which is mounted under the driver's
seat on a T-shaped metal bracket. I'd bet that it will either be loose in its
socket, and as the bellypan heats up in high speed running it opens up the
circuit. After all, it's right above one of the cats! Alternatively, the relay
contacts may have arced and burned, and be giving you intermittent contact. I
had this problem due to contact bounce when I first started running my '86,
because the relay wasn't properly mounted in the early cars. Each time I'd
corner hard, it would bang against the bodywork, and inertia would open the
contacts momentarily, which caused them to burn very quickly.
It is possible that the intermittent is further back up the wiring harness, as
well. The fuel pump control output from the EEC-IV goe through 3 major harness
connectors on its way to the relay, so debugging it might get time consuming.
It could also be the fusible link that supplys batteery hot to the relay, or
the wiring at the inertia switch that cuts the fuel pump off after an accident
imapct. But my experience has been that it is almost _always_ the relay or its
socket.
The FP relay should never shut off during normal operation. You should be able
to troubleshoot this one easily. Let us know how it goes!
03 Nov 1994
[email protected]
[email protected] (stang)
> I just completed upgrading the master cylinder and front calipers on
> my 90' LX to the Lincoln LSC versions.
> Question - I have a firm pedal, but it still engages lower than i
> anticipated. Any ideas what might cause this ? How can I get the
> pedal to engage sooner.
The answer is simple, but the tuning process can be a bit complex. The problem
is a stackup in tolerances that has led to there being slop between the
pushrod that drives the MC and the MC piston. That's the cause of your long
pedal.
Ford tries to control this dimension pretty carefully (by chassis standards,
anyway!), but fails miserably. You can adjust the length of the pushrod to
take up this extra play, and set the inital pad contact height of the pedal,
within certain limits.
You want to have the pushrod set up so that there is minimal pedal travel
before the refill port in the MC closes and line pressure begins to be
developed. You want to set up the pushrod length so that you do get *just* a
squirt of fluid back up into the reservoir from the refill port as the piston
starts its stroke. You want to minimize the stroke length spent squirting,
and maximize the stroke length spent generating pressure.
You just want to make sure that you don't go too far, and lengthen the pushrod
to the point that the refill ports *never open*. If you do, you will
experience total and uncontrollable lockup, the first time the brakes get
warm. The fluid expands as it heats, and if the refill ports are closed, it
can't escape back into the reservoir. So it creates more brake drag, which
generates more heat, resulting in eventual and complete lockup.
The easiest way to get _close_ to perfection is to remove the lines from the
MC (I know, it's a pain in the ass), and lengthen the pushrod by quarter turns
of the acorn adjusting nut on the end until you _just_ feel the pushrod make
contact with the piston as you slip the MC in place on the booster. If it
squirts fluid at you as you put it in place, you've probably adjusted the
pushrod too long. Attaining the ideal pedal position is an iterative process,
but you can do it in an afternoon. Just make sure you test the car afterwards
and warm the brakes up throughly, just to make sure that you haven't gone too
far.
[email protected]
01 Nov 1994
[email protected]
On Nov 1, Gary Krasche wrote:
> What IS the lowest battery voltage that the typical Mustang engine
> will continue to run at?
The solid-state voltage regulator internal to the EEC-IV box drops out of
regulation once you get under 8 volts. However, given the voltage-discharge
curve of a lead-acid battery, that'll happen pretty abruptly. The EEC will
shut down entirely, and stop issuing spark events (as well as turning off the
fuel pump!) right around 8 volts. This is why you can easily get into a
situation where a weakening battery can crank the motor, but it won't fire.
There is some question about the integrity of the spark at voltages in the 8-
10 range, as well, as the coil isn't getting the kick that it would like. The
whoile system is designed for a minimum of 12 volts, and it is very good
practice to keep that voltage up.
Oh, by the way. You drag racers that like to run total-loss ingnition systems,
to eliminate the engine drag of the alternator? Be aware that the fuel pump
output is directly proportional to the supply voltage! So, if the pump
delivers enough to keep you from burning down your pistons with a nitrous-
induced lean condition at 12.5 volts, it may let you lean _way_ out as the
battery goes flat. Just thought you'd like to know...
01 Nov 1994
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Scott Griffith writes:
>The EEC will shut down entirely, and stop issuing spark
>events (as well as turning off the fuel pump!) right around 8 volts.
FWIW, a source who works with the EEC-IV reports that the shutdown voltage is
actually 5 volts (obviously, you're pretty SOL if you're getting down to 8).
He reports that the injectors are 12 volt devices. The EEC constantly
monitors the system voltage and increases injector firing duration to deliver
the correct amount of fuel. Pretty neat! I wonder who got that patent.
BUT, how does the fuel delivery curve of a 24 lbs/hr or 30 lbs/hr injector
change with reduced voltage compared to a 19 lbs/hr injector? The EEC more
than likely grabs the correction value from a stored table. I expect they use
the injector calibration/flow data to determine the values for the chart. I
don't know if they're significantly different.
This is one more little detail they try and control in the interest of
drivability, consistency and emissions. And one more minor detail that won't
be quite right when you throw different injectors at the car :-(
01 Nov 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> ...my other option was to get some solid
> aluminum motor mounts from Auto Specialties. I would suppose that
> they would raise the motor up a bit, but this would (?) give me a
> slightly higher center of gravity. Would this be significant enough to
> do harm (for autox)?
I doubt that the increase in CG height would be noticeable, let alone
earthshaking. it's not that new mounts raise the motor, it's that your old
mounts have sacked out and let it drop! You'll just be putting it back where
it ought to be.
However, I'd like to suggest one alternative short of the solid mounts. Solid
mounts really have no place in a car that pretends to be streetable (yes,
that's right, even I have my limits!). I'd recommend that you spend a few
dollars more and get the motor mounts from the convertibles. These are still
rubber isolatedmounts, but the rubber is designed in a much more stable and
long-lived configuration. As a result they are much stiffer, but still
slightly compliant. In particular, they'll keep the instrument panel and
bodywork forward of the A-pillars from shaking themselves apart. Many of us
have these and are very pleased with the results.
The part numbers for the convertible mounts are E3ZZ-6038-D for the right
side, and -E for the left side. Check with your Ford dealer.
If it's just a trailered track car, then by all means bolt 'er in there. But
if you get groceries in it now and again, the solid mounts will transmit a
_huge_ amount of powertrain noise right into the tub. This is not something to
take lightly!
03 Nov 1994
Bret Toll
[email protected]
I received my global west subframe connectors yesterday. (I can hardly wait to
put them on!!! :-). Also in the box was a small valve. This was not included
in the "parts list" and I couldn't figure out what it could be for (with
relation to the SFC's), so I'm assuming that the valv accidently was sent to
me. Now I'm interested in finding out what it could be for. So here is an
ascii representation of it and a small description.
====== <--3/8" threaded port
======
======
------\ ======
__ --- |_| |
Knurelled | || _ | |
Twisty ---> | == (_) | |
Knob |_|| _| |_____________
--- | | | | <--3/16"smooth rubber
------/ |____|_____________| hose type port
^
| ^
(hole in middle) | |
3/16" threaded 3/16" threaded
port into vavlv. and sealed connection
(shown as connected)
The valve needle sticks into
and opens/closes this port.
This can really be described as two separate pieces (If I were to unscrew
them). The piece on the left is a valv with an open port (the whole in the
middle) and a controlled port. This contolled port connects to the piece on
the right which is like a "T" with three types of ports (one 3/16" threaded
"innie" port, one 3/8" threaded "outie" port, and one 3/16" smooth "outie"
port).
Does this look familiar to anyone? Do you know what this is?
03 Nov 1994
[email protected] (Tom Stangler)
= I received my global west subframe connectors yesterday. (I
= can hardly wait to put them on!!! :-). Also in the box was a small
= valve. This was not included in the "parts list" and I couldn't
= figure out what it could be for (with relation to the SFC's), so I'm
= assuming that the valv accidently was sent to me. Now I'm interested
= in finding out what it could be for. So here is an ascii
= representation of it and a small description.
******ascii rep deleted*****
its used to balance the pressure that builds up inside the SFC's between left
and right.
After installation of the SFC's, you need to install a set of schraider valves
to pressurize the SFC's to 120 psi. Your valve is installed between the two
rails, so under steady state cornering the two SFC's can respond to the
different pressures caused by the inequal forces of traction.
You can also use it to give one wheel more bite than the other by pressurizing
one more than the other.
it said to be good for 5-15 HP over the stock setup, and .2-.6 seconds in the
quarter.
so let me run out of here..........feet don't fail me now!
03 Nov 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Oct 31, Brian St. Denis wrote:
> These (PF street) pads require lots of force on the rotors (low
> Cf) and, after several laps, I can't get enough force to lock up any
> of the tires. I think I'll go to stainless flex
> lines before next season.
You'll like the difference they make. Especially if, as Steve Sanks said, your
brake pedal was making it all the way to the _floor_. Brake pedal feel is
absolutely crucial to your confidence in the car. And running out of brakes
with the trees beckoning is not exactly confidence-inspiring. The other
problem with brake-line swell is that the pedal won't even pump up noticeably.
You're just SOL, whistling down into a corner at speed. Not fun.
> Later, I rotated front left to right rear
> (like you have to do with Yoko A008s) and set the pressure at 38 front
> and 34 rear. This really fixed the problem and my lap time dropped by at
> least one second... I got 7 days of driving schools out of one set of
> tires. This may not seem like much, but when I used Michelin XGT-Z4s
> on the track, they would roll over and the out side edges would wear
> until the tire was ruined. I think race tires last longer during tack
> use than street tires do so they are a good investment.
A lot of folks, including some who really should know better, forget the
simple fact of tire tuning: every time you go out, the "optimum" will have
changed. Different tires will require different setups, and certainly
different pressures. The same tires will require different pressures on
different tracks, or in the heat of day as opposed to the cool of the morning.
It is a neverending game of "two steps forwards, one step back", when you're
tying to optimize this stuff.
The Yokos have very stiff sidewalls compared to the Michelins, so they'll
require less pressure, and perhaps less negative camber, to work for a given
track day. I miss those stiff, predictable sidewalls, as my RE71RAZs still
feel a bit sloppy to me. Certainly, it is easy to destroy a set of full-depth
cushy-ride street tires at a track outing, especially if you try and make the
stock alignment settings and pressures work, and you want to go _fast_. Yokos
are a great introductory track tire, becuase they are very forgiving and
_very_ long-lived.
> One technique that works extra well at Hallett is being smooth in the
> cockpit. This track doesn't like point and shoot as much as some
> tracks and smoothly applying the brakes and turning in slower really
> pays off.
Rephrase that to say "One technique that works well _everywhere...", and I'll
agree with you. Now that you have the feel of how it helps you from a
difficult track, just apply the same lesson at your next "easy" track outing,
and over the course of every street mile in between. "Practice makes perfect,
but only if you practice perfectly".
Steve Sanks also wrote:
> I also had some Porterfield R4 carbon-kevlar pads. Using high-torque,
> low pedal effort pads is a whole new experience. That means after
> using PF's and having to push relatively hard to stop, after switching
> to the R4's, I initially was having trouble locking up the fronts.
> Remember, squeeze the pedal, don't slam-dunk it.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Then, just wait until you try those pads
with the larger diameter PBR front setup! You can really stretch the seatbelts
during braking with those. The more I run mine, the more I like them, for both
street and track use.
Who says that trackwork doesn't improve the breed? And that applies to the
driver, as well as the machine...
03 Nov 1994
TROY EILAND
[email protected]
No one responded to my question about the '86 5.0 motor differences, but I did
comfirm with Ford Motorsports that the '86 is different. The '86 has flat top
pistons and a higher compression ratio. Steve at FMS said that almost any cam
change will result in a clearence problem. I would like to hear from anyone
who has put a cam into a '86 engine. What cam did you use and did you have to
notch the pistons?
03 Nov 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> I had planned on changing heads and cam this winter but I was recently
> told that the '86 used different pistons. I was told that my pistons
> would have to be notched if I use a more agressive cam. I though that
> only the heads and TPI were different on the '86, not the pistons.
> Could someone please tell me what are the differences between the '86
> and newer engines. Is there a difference in compression ratio?
Well, since none of the powertrain gurus have steeped up to the plate here,
I'll wade in.
This is true. The '86 cars had different pistons and heads, and you are very
likely to have to notch the pistons if you go to a different head or a more
aggressive cam.
The '86 heads (E6SE) had a 62.9-65.9cc chamber volume, and the motor was
spec'd for a 9.2:1 compression ratio, which was delivered by the reduced deck
clearance of the E6ZE pistons. The later cars have the E5TE heads, which along
with the E7ZA pistons, deliver a lower 9.0:1 CR from a smaller 6.03-63.6cc
combustion chamber, which means that they have to have a greater deck
clearance.
So the long and the short of it is that yes, the '86 pistons are unique, and
their upper surface is very likely to meet up with the valves in a poorly
thought out head or cam swap.
Info courtesy of the _1979-1993 V8 Mustang Specifications Guide_, written by
Al Kirschenbaum, and published By DriveLines, PO Box 915, Pearblossom, CA
93553-0915. Answers to many questions like this one can be found in this book,
One other point. If you have changed only the upper intake manifold on your
'86, you'll see very little of the improvement you hope for. Much of the
restriction in that part is in the lower manifold. You need to consider the
upper and lower as a pair. The gasket-plane mismatch alone in that hybrid is a
horrorshow...
03 Nov 1994
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
[email protected]
-> Originally [email protected] (Tom Stangler)
-> its used to balance the pressure that builds up inside the SFC's
-> between left and right.
-> After installation of the SFC's, you need to install a set of
-> schraider valves to pressurize the SFC's to 120 psi. Your valve
Let him have his leg back, Tom...
Actually, MV Agusta started pressurizing the chassis of its racing motorcycles
in the early '70s. If the chassis began to lose pressure, it meant you had a
crack somewhere. It saved the time needed to disassemble the machine and
Magnaflux the chassis.
Some of the tube frame racing cars do the same thing, for the same reason.
04 Nov 1994
[email protected] (Andre Molyneux)
[email protected]
> Another question--what do caliper guide sleeves do for you? These are the
> things sold by Steeda et al....
The purpose of the stainless steel caliper guide sleeves is to help limit how
much the brake caliper can cock sideways with regards to the rotor. If you
look at the caliper guide bolts/pins, they go through holes in the outer pad
backing plates and thread into the mounting ears on the spindle, but also
extend out the other side of the spindle and their tips go through holes in
the caliper body. The idea being that the pins bolt into the spindle, and the
caliper can slide back and forth on the pins to allow for various loadings and
imperfections, and so apply relatively equal pressure to the outer and inner
faces of the rotor.
This design is known as a floating caliper. Either the caliper or the rotor
has to have some freedom to move side-to-side, or brake lock-up will occur
very easily. I seem to recall skod mentioning systems where the pads on both
sides are driven, with a pressure balance tube between them, for fixed rotor
and caliper systems, but that's another subject.
Ford places rubber boots lined with grease in the holes in the caliper that
the ends of the pins protrude into. The grease insures that the pin/caliper
interface moves freely and avoids bind. The drawback to this is that the end
of the pin isn't really supported well - it's sitting in a rubber boot that
can be deformed, so when the brakes are applied and the pads (with caliper
attached) try to rotate with the rotor, the caliper cocks a bit sideways on
the pins. The end result is that the caliper and pads don't stay parallel to
the rotor surface, leading to tapered pad wear.
The SS guide sleeves replace the rubber boots, and since they won't deform
like the rubber, the caliper won't move as much, and stays closer to parallel
with the rotor. The result is more even pad wear. Notice I said more even,
not completely even. The SS sleeves are a band-aid that helps, but it sure
doesn't cure the problem. They are a good investment, however, as they'll
extend the life of your pads a bit. They'll certainly pay for themselves in
increased pad life, at least until you start using the brakes so hard that you
start warping the backing plates. Hasn't happened to me yet, but there are
several people on this list who could show you potato chips that used to be
backing plates for the driven pad...
They're a good, cheap investment for the Mustangs brakes. Buy them with a
clear conscience. com
...
skod
I decided (ok, a big fan of magnetic drain plugs. They can be obtained at any
parts store, but watch out on the thread size. Ford, in its infinite wisdom,
has finally decided to screw up the thread mix on the motor as well. It used
to be that you could rely on the motor to have nothing but SAE threaded
fittings, with nary a metric thread in sight, and the drain plugs were 1/2-20.
Much to our eternal annoyance, sometime in 1991 or so, Ford started using
_metric_ drain plugs. I don't know the size of them, right offhand. 12x1.5
comes to mind, but I'm probably wrong on that. So you'll have the metric plugs
on your car, and please let us know the proper size when you find out!
I check my magnetic plugs, and cut open my filter to read its entrails, every
oil change. On my plugs, I'll usually pick up just a couple of fine needlelike
shavings, and a teeny bit of fine powder, and the rate of shaving production
has been constant for the last 100k miles. In the filter, I'll usually find a
few little ferrous sparklies, but almost never any nonferrous bits. Generally
things are pretty clean. I believe that the biggest source of these bits of
detritus are probably the timing chain, little spalled-off bits of the edges
of the cam lobes, and maybe some cruft from wear in the distributor drive and
oil pump gears. I'll have to tear it down eventually to find out where they
really came from- but by then it will very much be like an archaeological
expedition.
If you're going to read your filter guts, it helps a heckuva lot to let it
drain for several days before you cut it open.
If you have enough wierdness going on that you see sparkles on the dipstick on
such a fresh motor, I do believe that a little further checking _might_ be in
order.
21 Nov 1994
[email protected]
[email protected]
> Would someone please send me the torque figures for the 15 mm bolts
> which connect the aft part of the K-member to the main unibody structure?
Interestingly, these appear to be an oversight in every one of the '86-93 spec
manuals. This is presumably a result of the Ford mentality that the K-frame is
a sealed unit, adjusted at the factory, and not to be messed with. Faugh.
However, the similar 15mm bolts used to fasten the lower arm to the
crossmember are spec'd at 110-150 ft-lb, and I think that's the spec I would
use.
> My car is a 5.0 LX hatchback. I have the Kaufmann g-load brace
> installed. I am suspecting the previously mentioned bolts because when
> I go over bumps or small _unavoidable_ holes, there is a slight banging
> sound on the RHS below the front passenger's feet.
There's a lot of stuff that can be loose down there, or can have shifted such
that it can whack the body or subframe under load. In particular, I can
imagine the motor mounts having sacked out enoug to allow the motor to sag a
bit, allowing the H-pipe to contact G-load braces and so on. It is possible,
that these noises are from the K-frame shifting, but it's unlikely. More
likely sources are the control arm and antiroll bar bushings, the exhaust
running out of clearance, the thermactor air downstream tube banging on the
body, and so on. These can be a pain to track down!
In my car, I had a nasty rattle from the thermactor air tube, but only on
right turns, only on trailing throttle, and only when it was cold. I found it
and fixed it, and I believe that that was the last non-mission-critical rattle
I fixed...
07 Nov 1994
Troy Wecker
[email protected]
POTENTIAL SAFETY ISSUE FOR MUSTANGS WITH 245+ WIDE TIRES
--------------------------------------------------------
I'm writing to share a potential safety issue that relates to Fox-3 Mustangs
with 245+ wide front tires especially the '93 Cobra's. As many of you might
know (and list member Kevin McKenney found out), I've had a grinding sound
from the right front end of my car when the wheel is turned for a right turn.
It's been there since the car was new and I originally wrote it off as the
sway bar but I finally discovered the real problem. After some driving last
weekend I noticed the smell of burned rubber especially after some right turns
where the right front wheel gets compressed while turning right on a negative
bank or incline. When I pulled the right front wheel I immediately noticed
melted rubber on the vertical steel brake line about a third of the way up.
The line was slightly worn and polished smooth about 1.5 inches long on the
outboard surface. The tire is polished all the way around on the edge just
were the tread transitions to sidewall. On the OEM Gator's this edge has a
miniature "washboard" pattern that runs along it. This pattern acted on the
brake line and made the grinding noise. It only happens on right turns since
the line is to the rear of the strut. Because the brake line is mounted in 2
places on the right front frame rail and the firewall the noise was
transmitted by the body.
I'm not sure the brake line would have had a hole worn in it (5,500 miles of
rubbing in my case) but it could lead to a stress fatigue failure in the line
or to a blown tire. This would be even more likely to happen to some of the
track time cars or those who do a lot of spirited cornering.
To fix the problem I moved the line back with my hands being careful not to
kink it. I also made sure the line was ok all the way back to the MC and
where it is exposed from the strut tower to the firewall. I then uf habit and
brain-damage than any real reason, I suppose), and I checked all of '86
through '93 before I posted that. Motorcraft ATF Type F, P/N XT-1-QF it is,
for better or worse.
They may have corrected it for ohter platforms in the intervening years, and
be just doing the cut-and-paste error propagation in the RWD sedan manuals.
But whatever the reason, I think that it's important that folks know that they
can use the non-Type-F stuff in the PS gear with good results. That, we agree
on. There are a lot of folks out there who will slavishly follow the shop
manuals to the letter, including the one guy I talked to who got caught out by
the typo in the '87 (I think!) manual that said to torque the front wheel
bearing adjuster nuts to 10-28 ft-lb (instead of in-lb)...
10 Nov 1994
[email protected] (Jeff Velna Mfg 4-6040 ~BHOSVWZ#097)
>I just put _another_ pump on my Bronco. Am I supposed to be using Type
>F tranny fluid of PS fluid. When I put the first one on, I remember the fluid
>draining out to be pink. But I put PS fluid (clear) back in. Would this be
>causing slippage?
Shannon, Shannon, Shannon...Try a Saginaw pump. It uses Dextron/Mercon, but
more importantly, its far more robust than the stock Ford pump. I lost several
Ford pumps on my testbed Bronco before someone bothered to tell me about the
Saginaw. You'll have to fabricate a mounting bracket but then you can forget
about your pump. :) You'll find the Saginaw in all your best boneyards or
under GM hoods everywhere. Happy shopping.
07 Nov 1994
[email protected]
On Nov 4, Dan Malek wrote:
> Well, not exactly, and here is the source of more research. Ford
> (and most everyone else) has not recommended Type "F" ATF for power
> steering for a long time. The ATF and power steering fluid products
> carry different part numbers, and you can actually purchase "Power
> Steering Fluid."
Yes, I know. But if you check the shop manuals for the Mustang and the other
rear-wheel-drive passenger cars, they still *to this day* call out Type F for
the power steering fluid. I fully agree that it's braindead, and that it's
outright _wrong_, but it's right there in black and white! I have been buying
the short form spec manual for each new model year (more out of habit and
brain-damage than any real reason, I suppose), and I checked all of '86
through '93 before I posted that. Motorcraft ATF Type F, P/N XT-1-QF it is,
for better or worse.
They may have corrected it for ohter platforms in the intervening years, and
be just doing the cut-and-paste error propagation in the RWD sedan manuals.
But whatever the reason, I think that it's important that folks know that they
can use the non-Type-F stuff in the PS gear with good results. That, we agree
on. There are a lot of folks out there who will slavishly follow the shop
manuals to the letter, including the one guy I talked to who got caught out by
the typo in the '87 (I think!) manual that said to torque the front wheel
bearing adjuster nuts to 10-28 ft-lb (instead of in-lb)...
10 Nov 1994
[email protected] (Chuck Fry)
Most early EFI systems didn't allow push starting. I think it was '91 before
they added it to the EEC. See probst book for details.
My '89 has been successfully push-started. I think Probst, in his excellent
EEC-IV book, mentions this feature was deliberately built in. I don't know
exactly when it was introduced. -- Chuck
17 Nov 1994
[email protected]
Subject: Re: SS Flex line for Rear
Woody Middleton , [email protected]
> Since the Earl's banjo fitting is narrower than the stock one, the
> stock banjo bold could bottom out without seating the fitting. Have
> you guys had success with cutting the banjo bolt or do I have to try
> to find one the appropriate length ?? What is the appropriate length?
I shortened mine by about 1/8", way back when. Some time later, I replaced it
with an Earl's banjo bolt that worked fine without shortening it. That was so
long ago that I'd forgotten it, and I really need to add that to the writeup!
I don't recall the thread specs right off the top of my head, since that chunk
of plumbing fell off the car and was replaced with better stuff in the Great
SAE Flare Purge a few years back. I'll have to dig it out and measure to be
sure, but I _think_ that it is 10mmx1.25, which would make it an Earl's P/N
977515. Can anyone confirm that today? If not, I'll dig it out of the bone
pile tonight and measure it...
15 Nov 1994
Ed Welbon
Superchips? Verboten!
I have(had) one in my SVO Mustang (hey, Scott and Ken, the guy didn't specify
vehicle type 8). Not recomended. In my experince, their chips don't work as
advertised, they have lousy customer service and in my case wouldn't give me
any specifics concerning the dyno measurements they claim to have made. I am
attempting to invoke their return policy, it isn't looking like it will be too
easy though.
Putting aside the many problems in drivaability, the net is that the chip
slowed the car down by about 1.0 second and lost about 5-8 mph on big end
(compared to the stock "chip"). I don't believe that they did anything but
mathematically lean the fuel curve at part throttle (they require larger
injectors and/or more fuel pressure) and putz with the advance. I would be
astonished to learn that (on the track, in real life) their Buick chips were
anywhere near ATR or Red Armstrong's chips.
You may forward this testimonial to any one in the known universe, even Peter
Whales, the head honcho at Super-scam-Chips(whose email address I have lost),
provided you include my email address. By the way, what is the nature of the
Diamond Cars Scam?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Foxbody 1994 /part 3
Return to Foxbody Tech Index
Go to Foxbody 1995