file: fox95.html
collected by: [email protected]
30 Jan 1995
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
> For one thing...the before mentioned Global West unit...after talking
> w/Griggs for a long long long while...a guy there brought up three points
> to take note on: 1) it bolts to sheet metal...so that tells you how rigid
> it is hehehe 2) it is not long enough to grasp enough traction from and
> 3) if you plan to use a panhard rod, you cannot eliminate the upper
> control arms (we are talking about mustangs...aren't we...I hope so)
There's a number of different schools of thought on the panhard setups on
Mustangs.
There's a bunch of guys who are running panhards with the upper arms in place
to some benefit but it's certainly not the same as torque arm setup where the
panhard does _all_ lateral location.
In regards to Griggs comments (I run a Griggs arm so there's no confusion
here),every vendor sells you "their story". Here in CENDIV, the regional
champ car _was_ running a Global West bar; the car not only won the
championship but also set at least one track record during the season. The
Global arm bolts to "sheet metal" but the center tunnel is some pretty serious
"sheet metal" (esp. since we're talking unibody cars - all there is is sheet
metal). My feeling is that Griggs is a pretty decent fabricator but we spent
a ton of time following his il-advised, too-soft rear spring rates tring to
get this baby dialed in.
There's been some discussion on the GW arm on this list (and others) in
regards to how it works/doesn't work. From my experience seeing it run, it
_does_ work because I've run with cars that have used it and they seem to be
pretty well hooked up.
This whole torque arm deal seems to be the missing link for many A/S Mustangs.
I've seen a lot of decently prepared Mustangs basically be unable to put down
the power. When people talks about a perceived "advantage" of the Camaro
suspension, one of the significant "advantages" comes from the torque arm rear
design in helping the car get power down out of (and during) corners...
30 Jan 1995
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
mustangs mailing list
Dan Howley writes:
> And that brace for the carbed 85GT can't be had for love or money.
> Maier doesn't make one either. So other than
> having Charlie Bruno fabricate one for me at a decidely non-trivial cost,
> I'm SOL.
These braces are fairly trivial to fabricate, and you don't have to get gouged
by anyone in particular. Most anyone with a little fabrication experience
should be able to build one for you.
Keep in mind that you will pay an impressively skilled Roush fabricator
$60/hour for his services (the last time I checked). That service may be
fabricating a strut tower brace, building an aluminum dry sump tank, a set of
headers, a front spindle for a TRANS-AM car, etc. In my mind, that is quite
reasonable. What I do not find unreasonable are the guys who charge a similar
amount (or even more!) and have less skill, less resources, etc.
The brace consists of only a few pieces - Two plates that sandwich between
your strut tower and your current camber/caster plates (factory or
aftermarket). You will also have two very trivial plates that sandwhich the
firewall and interconnecting tube stock.
These will take the most time. Drilling the large holes on the drill press is
a little time consuming.
So I would say that this is a 2 or possibly 3 hour job if the fabricator is
slow, distracted or doesn't have a good compliment of tools. Material cost is
not more than $20 (for very low quantity prices, the price is much less for
anyone buying in any sort of quantity and this is a project where you might be
able to effectively raid the scrap barrel).
If the fabricator doesn't have good tools (or is slow for other reasons), he
should be charging less since his productivity is lower than the guy who does.
Note that I am not including paint prep and painting in the time estimate -
scotch-briting or sanding the surface, cleaning, priming and painting.
However, if you get charged 3 hours, you might expect it to be ready for
primer.
31 Jan 1995
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Jan 30, Joseph Weinstein wrote:
> I saw an ad for a 'track link' unit made by
> Maximum motorsports, which is intended to combine with a
> panhard rod to replace the two upper links of the rear
> axle. Has anyone seen this piece work?
No, but you don't really have to. It's simply a knockoff of the Griggs torque
arm. It will work much the same as the Griggs piece, as geometrically it is
nearly identical. It will have all the same problems and exposures as the
Griggs, plus a couple more, due to its lateral triangulation (for those who
haven't seen it, it's a trianglated tubular truss, not a rectangular-section
beam). Their front pickup point for the arm allows almost no lateral motion,
so you'll need to be very cautious if you combine their link with large
amounts of antisquat. The resulting roll steer will create bind, and the car
will go loose in a hurry as the roll rate rises.
The Griggs arm has a certain amount of lateral compliance built in to its
front pickup point, to acommodate this motion. It can also flex a fair amount
laterally, so it can absorb this kind of antisocial behavior, even when
installed unmodified. I modified mine whe I installed it, so that the front
pickup point presents zero resistance to lateral movement (up to +-1"
laterally). Thus, I can use large amounts of antisquat without bind. You'd be
very hard pressed to do this with the Maximum piece.
Additionally, the crossmember that forms the front pickup point for the torque
arm is designed to bolt to the flat, unsupported belly metal right by the seat
mounts. This is not a good design, especially for a car that is to be driven
hard. Even the bolt-in Griggs crossmember (designed for cars that do not have
SFCs) extends clear out to the rocker seams, wher you can pick up 3 layers of
metal, and there is something resembling rigidity.
Any suspension design that is supposed to work by bolting to belly metal is a
marginal design that is gonna require maintenance and care. The right way to
do it is to attach any crossmember to solidly installed SFCs to spread the
loads, rather than hoping that bolts and backing plates will be be able to
extract enough strength from that 22ga belly pan to live for long. These
things see *very* large impact loads, and the belly pan gives up without much
provocation even without having the rear suspension hanging off of it.
The Maximum panhard also lacks the strength and adjustability of the Griggs
piece. All in all, given that the prices are just about identical, I'd have to
highly recommend the Griggs. If you are _determined_ to use the Maximum piece,
then please use the Griggs panhard setup, and not the Maximum. IMNSHO, if the
car sees track use, you _really_ need the strength.
05 Feb 1995
"Lawrence S. Harris III"
> 110mph and a speed limiter kicked in. Didn't matter what gear we were in,
> the car would go up to 110 and start bumping its limiter. Just to make
> sure, we turned around at the end of the bridge and tried it again back
> and forth bumping the limiter all the way.
That speed limiter is very easy to defeat. A simple circuit can be built to
divide the VSS (Vehicle Speed Sensor) by 2. The only thing this sensor is
used for is to detect weather the car is moving or standing still (to
recallibrate lookup tables for coasting vs idling), and to judge the speed of
the cruise ontrol. This will essentially give the computer a new speed limit
of 220. I think that'll do!! Who cares if the cruise control thinks i'm
doing 35 instead of 70! (oops, I don't have cruise in my '86)
Ford probably speed limited the car because of the speed rating of the tires.
Thanks once again for those not willing to take responsibility for their own
actions, and dragging a lawyer into it..... I remember reading the review of
the Camaro Z-28 Convertible equipped with a speed limit to 108MPH. It was
rather funny seeing the top spead in each gear table... It did 108MPH tops in
6th, 5th, 4th, and if memory serves nearly 3rd too!!! Talk about rediculous.
> I was thinking, nice car but my 1986 5.0 would have blown it away. In
> general, I think my '86 would have blown it away easily at any speed but
> especially on top. The 4.6 is a nice motor as measured by how we flogged
> it and how we got decent gas mileage. Still, I don't think it's a huge
> leap from the 5.0 and if I were you, I'd stick with a 5.0 in your stang.
Remember the revies of the older T-bird Sport with the 5.0 in it? This car
was shockingly slow. I think the current 4.6 will work very well in the
Mustang. I could probably more easily build a 5.0 that would destroy anything
a 4.6 could do with current parts, but I have a craving to do something a
little different with this car. I have always loved this car because it was a
coupe for this same reason.
After reading the buildup that was illustrated in the latest MM's&FF's, I got
even more excited about it. They had a '94 mustang with a Kenne Bell
Whipplecharged 4.6. If I did that, I'd definately be the only one on the
block with one.
I may have a lead towared buying a 4.6 SOHC cheaply. If I did the car
with the SOHC, I would entertain the idea of later going to the DOHC, since
everything would already be pretty much in place.
08 Feb 1995
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 6, Chris Adkins wrote:
> Yesterday I noticed that just past the rear of both quarter
> windows on my '86 hatchback, the sheetmetal bulges out.
> It's noticible when you look down the side of the car and
> it's chipped the paint in the area.
> It doesn't stick out real far, just about a 1/8 inch, but I was
> wondering if this is a sign of more problems to come?
It is a sign of hard use, and of fatigue in the unibody. Those of us who use
our cars hard in track or autocross events experience this effect sooner, but
it is pretty well inevitable for an unstiffened car that is driven hard.
> My questions are:
> 1.) What's happens next, more body flex and groans?
Yes. It is a downward spiral, although it is certainly gradual enough. It can
be delayed, if not prevented outright. But prompt repair of any major damage
to the tub (such as separation of the belly seams aft of the front seats,
cracks in the belly pan, and cracking or separation of the rear control amr
torque boxes), and some stiffening can really help. Well-installed SFCs and a
strut tower brace are remarkably efficient at quieting down squeaky tubs.
> 2.) This is the mid-west (rustbelt) should I unload and go for
> a newer 5.0.
Only you can know the extent of rust damage. It could be pretty bad by now,
and entail more expense in restoration than you're currently willing to
invest. If the body panels aren't perforated, you might well be able to save
the car. You have to find a good body shop, one you feel you can trust, and
have a frank talk with the wrenches there. If the concensus is that the poor
thing needs to be put out of its misery, you'd probably do well to do it
sooner than later.
09 Feb 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Feb 9, [email protected] wrote:
> I read the recent article on the Global West TRAC LINK system (similar to a
> torque arm) in MM&FF which had some good info. In a nutshell, the device
> seems to be good for road racers or people interested in improving 1/4 times,
> but not so hot for autocross because it tends to make the car understeer.
> The company claims 8/10s second in the 1/4, but the test in MM/FF got 4/10s
> (still not too shabby). The installation is apparently a bitch, requiring
> 6-7 hours by someone who's pretty experienced to boot.
>
> Does anyone have any experience (positive or negative) with the Global West
> TRAC LINK system?? Would you recommend it?
The Trac Link appears to be a viable add-on for people who would like to
increase forward traction and reduce axle lateral displacement on the Fox 4-
link rear suspension, and don't want to go into modifications as extensive as
those required to use a torque arm/Panhard suspension. It won't be as
effective as the torque-arm based solution, but it is significantly less
expensive, and has the advantage of being non-critical. This is to say that if
it fails in use, control of the vehicle is retained, since the stock 4-link
setup is still intact.
Since its introduction last year, it has gone through one design revision to
correct an exposure to cracking in hard use, and that has removed some of the
objections that I had to the thing in the past. As a bolt-in, it will require
some maintenance, because its pickup point on the tub is bolted to the belly
metal (the vertical bulkhead at the leading edge of the rear seat reliefs),
and sees significant shock loads. You'll need to keep an eye on the thin
belly metal that it bolts to, since this is in an area that is already prone
to cracking. It is nontrivial to install, but then so is a torque arm.
The way that it works is to control the axle's torque reaction, by coupling
these reactions directly into the tub. It also can be used with antisquat
brackets on the axle pickup points for the lower control arms to further
increase bite while still controlling the roll steer that this modification
creates.
The downside is that if a great deal of antisquat is built in, this roll-steer
resistance will translate into bind, as the 4-link's bushings have to twist in
two planes to acommodate the new instant center that the Trak Link imposes.
And the very short swing arm length that makes this setup hook up so well on
acceleration can translate directly into increased brake hop on hard
deceleration.
What does that mean? For some people it will work well, for others not so
well. Your mileage may vary. If the car is a track car that will see lots of
hard roadracing use, and your rules permit it, I think a strong case can be
made that the torque arm is a better overall solution. This is especially true
if its crossmember is welded in solidly to existing subframe connectors. The
torque arm, like a custom 3-link, is the right no-holds-barred tunable
solution.
On the other hand, if you're restricted to bolt-on-only solutions, are
primarily interested in quarter-mile strightline behavior, or just want to
futz with it, the Trak Link can be made to work pretty well, and may be more
cost-effective. Just keep an eye on the bulkhead bolts, the belly metal in the
bulkhead, and the welds right where the link bolts to the axle's center
section. In operation over the past year, there have been scattered reports of
cracked welds occuring in both roadracing and drag racing use.
Of course, more than a few of us who put in torque arms right away when they
came out have broken Panhard mounts and other hardware, so the two designs
both require care and feeding for truly harsh use. To Global West's credit,
when I spoke to Doug Norrdin at the PRI show recently, he said basically "if
anybody has any problem with one of these, have them call me directly, and
we'll take care of the problem. We want our customers to be fully satisfied."
Sounds good to me. It certainly sounded good to Ford SVO, since they picked it
up and added it into the '95 SVO catalog.
If I had it to do over again, I'd personally still go with the torque arm,
despite the expense. I want to be able to wring the last little bit out of the
rear suspension, and to me it is worth the additional expense, work, and
tuning time. Just one guy's opinion. Hope that helps.
17 Feb 1995
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 16, Jeff Cross wrote:
> I was thumbing thru a Mustang Suspension Tuning book last night at
> the local bookstore (of course I'm unable to remember the title today.)
> Anyway, it said that the "hot" setup for '90+ Mustangs for
> tire and wheel was a set of rims from a Mitsu 3000GT. It completely
> failed to mention tire size so I'll just guess that it would
> be whatever comes stock on that car. Anyway, the question is,
> has anyone done this? What size tire did you get use? I don't
> even know what the stock rim&tire sizes are for that car.
That is a very popular upgrade path (along with the late Nissan 300ZX wheels,
which are very similar) for folks who have installed the Wilwood 4-pot brake
conversion. This conversion requires wheels with a very large offset to clear
the bulky 4-pot caliper. In any case, the wheels are 16x8, and normally you'd
run 245 or 255 tires on them. They are drilled for 5 on 4.5", so this mod is
far from applicable for a stock, 4-lug car.
22 Feb 1995
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected]
>Bendix part # 141398
>They cost me $45.23 each, $108.81 total including shipping.
>If anyone's interested, here are some equivalent part #'s for the Bendix rotors
>AIMCO = 5461, EIS = D17380, MIDAS = BR1595, NAPA = 85984, RAYBESTOS = 6984,
>WAGNER = BD60886
Does anyone have a similiar list of numbers and ~$'s for the 5 bolt LSC rotors?
24 Feb 1995
Dan Malek
>Does anyone know if a Lincoln MK-VII Rear will work in a late model
>Mustang?.....
The rear is 1.5" wider than the 4-bolt drum brake Mustang rear axle. It is the
same width as used in the SVO. The biggest problem with using the LSC rear
end in the Mustang is that it does not have the quad-shock brackets. You also
have to do something about the wider rear track.
>the Ratio in this rear? I would very much like a favorable gear ratio
>and the disks. I realize I will need to also upgrade wheels. The guy
Most of the ratios I have seen are 3.27:1. Once in a while you see a 3.08.
There are no 3.55 or 3.73 ratios on the LSC. There is more than just wheels.
The brake line connections are different, and you will also have to do
something about the proportioning, including changing the master cylinder.
>selling the rear also has Lincoln Wheels, but I'm not sure if THey'd look
>good on the mustang (I can't remember what they look like).
They look like crap on anything.
24 Feb 1995
James Dingell
fordnatics
There is no such thing as a "Police rear end." Special Service (police)
Mustangs received the same mundane ratio selection as standard Mustang GTs and
LXs of the period. As a matter of fact, contrary to popular opinion, Special
Service Mustangs DID NOT receive 31-spline axles, rear wheel disc brakes or
Auburn differentials from the factory. Jim Dingell, PPI
24 Feb 1995
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
Dave Zeckhausen writes:
>>> Has anyone out there installed a set of Baer Claw Pro-Race 13" brakes
>>> on their 1987 - 1993 Mustang? How about the Baer Claw Track brakes?
>>
>>Why bother when you can get so much more for so much less with the SVO
>>kit?
>Please tell me more!
>
>What are the advantages (besides price) of the SVO kit overthe Baer Claw
>Pro-Race kit?
Wow, you didn't know about the SVO kit? I'll bet Baer was glad to hear from
you! :-)
With the SVO kit, you get a whole lot more for your money, and you get the SN-
95 front spindles (better geometry, stronger and better hub/bearing setup).
You don't have a welded, one-off spindle. All of the parts are available from
a Ford dealer and are in the Ford parts system. Of course you do need to
insure that the front brakes will clear your wheels. You can slot the
spindles on a mill and turn to rotors down, if you have clearance problems.
Some of us run spacers with long ARP studs (the only way to go, our Morrosos
broke) to get around minor clearance problems.
Here is the blurb on the kit that I posted last Fall. For more information,
consult the '95 SVO catalog. The catalog describes the kit as nearly a true
bolt on, "requiring only one flared connection."
It is intended to be _complete_ for '79 to '93 Mustangs. It will include:
Front:
1.10" x 13" rotors
Calipers and anchors
Rubber brake lines
Hubs (the bearings are integrated)
'94 Spindles
Rear:
.71" x 11.653" rotors
Calipers and anchors
Caliper brackets
Rubber brake lines
Emergency brake cables
28 spline 5 bolt axles
General:
Very lightweight aluminum master cylinder
Brake booster
Adjustable (knob type) proportioning valve
Probably a new fixed proportioning valve (I didn't ask)
I think that about covers it. FWIW, last I heard, new spindles are $250 each
from your local dealer. Hubs are about $80. Rotors are about $50 each.
Calipers are about $100-$175 each, depending on the source (and I believe the
caliper anchor brackets are an additional (and significant) expense.
Those big front rotors are quite heavy. However, their additional mass is
made up for by the lightweight caliper. I am told that the fronts weigh about
the same as the old setup, though I haven't weighed them myself. I'm not sure
about the rears.
For the track-weenie types, you might be able to justify the cost of this
setup in reduced brake pad costs over the next several seasons (because your
consumption should go down).
--
I run these brakes on my Capri (except I run a 12x.810 rear rotor and a
slightly different caliper) and they are awesome, even at low speeds (ask any
'94 Cobra owner). The difference between this setup and merely adding a rear
disk kit to your Mustang is night and day.
Surprisingly, these big brakes help even at lower Solo II speeds. I never
believed it until I put them on my car. I could lock and modulate my old
brakes. I could adjust my proportioning valve until the rears locked first.
What more do you need? When presented with my skepticism, a brake development
engineer friend of mine just kept saying "well, you've got to try them.."
>Where can I get the SVO kit?
From an SVO dealer.. But there is a catch. This kit is new for '95 and is
still on backorder (I just checked). I recommend you get the kit through
Diversified Products. They are one of the largest SVO dealers in the country
and have excellent prices. They quoted me $1100 for the kit. Diversified has
a list of people to call when the kits become available.
The kits are supposed to be available very soon. Call them to get added to
the list, there is no obligation. Because they are located so close to the
Ford warehouses (right in the Detroit area), I suspect they will be one of the
first dealers to get the kits. One more very important detail - the initial
production was only supposed to be 200 kits, and they will go very fast.
Diversified says there has been a great deal of interest and they presently
have 30 people on their list.
Chucko wrote:
>But is that kit real yet?? This is not a trick question...
Real, but not available :-( I would have thought they'd be shipping by now.
26 Feb 1995
Eugene Y C Chu
fordnatics
>>One of the front D40's wore down to the threads on the outer shoulder,
>
>The problem with your car is painfully obvious.
>
>1. Have you read Skod's BTPP? He makes it _extremely_ clear that you
> need more negative camber when driving agressively and that's
> exactly the problem you have. Get it, read it, live it.
It's not just static negative camber, but as Scott mentioned, the steering
axis inclination angle of the Mustang (and most passenger cars) automatically
moves the negative camber of the tire to positive camber rather quickly as you
turn. One very effective fix for this is to add positive caster by moving the
upper strut mount back. Since the stock Mustang mounts don't allow this, you
need something from the after market. This will be about the 5th time I
publicly gushed accollades about a product, but I found the Global West
McCastor kit to be the best and most cost effective addition to any late model
Mustang. It lets you adjust your struts for more caster (and camber, if you
want) so the tires have much more dynamic negative camber when you're turning
but use less static camber. It also forces the tires to go straighter when
you're not turning for more straight line stability. Of course, the other
benefit is that your tires last a lot longer. Mine has already paid for
itself a few times over in tires saved. There are now a number of sources for
devices like this. The GW version is probably the most heavy duty, but the
Central Coast Mustang's version adds an inch of strut travel for those who
also lower their front ends by that much.
This idea has worked so well that Ford changed the upper strut mounts on
Mustangs in 1990 for more caster. If they'd only done so in 1984 when Doug
Nordin introduced them to the CHP and Ford. I think Ford must have been in
collusion with Goodyear or something.
A good set of alignment specs for street use would be:
caster: +3
camber: -1.5
toe in: 1/32
Doug actually recommends different values for each side for race cars, but I
don't remember what they are.
28 Feb 1995
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Feb 28, Chris Behier wrote:
> My goal would be fixing that wheel hop and out of control rear axle
> once and for all, for the '92 Mustang GT convertible.
> Koni red shocks (2 struts, 2 rear shocks)
> found so far at $385
This will work, although you may find the reds to be just a bit soft in the
rear with the higher-rate springs you're going to need.
> Griggs Panhard (HD race unit)
> found so far at $429
Good choice, given the torque arm decision.
> Griggs Torque arm
> found for $439 (might buy one from a buddy for less tho)
Good choice. This setup works extremely well. Now, don't forget the 350-400lb
progressive rear springs you'll need for a street/light duty track setup. And
you might even want to go with Suspension Techniques' nice 7/8" rear antiroll
bar.
> Saleen Racecraft lower control arms
> from Saleen at $169.99
*Bad* choice if ultimate handling is the goal, very bad indeed. These arms
have urethane bushings at both ends, are a nice rigid tubular fabrication. All
this rigidity will make your now-freed-up rear suspension bind all over again
in roll. Frankly, I think that for your pseudo-street application, the
Police/Taxi lower arms are more applicable. They'll still bind a little in
roll, of course, but they'll bind one hell of a lot _less_.
Be very careful with the aftermarket lower arms when you're tuning for maximum
grip in the corners. Many of them, like the Saleen and Edelbrock arms, have
nearly rigid urethane bushings at both ends. When you experience body roll,
these are incapable of acommodating the angulation between the axle pickup
point and the chassis pickup point. Think about it: every degree of body roll
results in exactly the same 1 degree of _twist_ applied along the axis of the
arm. The stock soft bushings can do this, and obviously so can Heims. The
urethanes _can't_.
When you slap urethanes into a stock arm, the twist is taken up by the stamped
U-channel arm deforming. This is why you need to keep an eye on these parts
when you do that mod for roadracing purposes, especially if you box them in.
Welding a plate across the open side of the U c-hannel creates a _beautiful_
stress rasier right at each of the 4 corners of the added plate.
Anyway, the upshot is that many of the aftermarket arms were designed for
drag-race launches, *not* for cornering enhancement. The rigid arms with rigid
bushings will add additional, poorly controlled roll stiffness as they bind
up, leading (potentially) to an ugly oversteer situation. For cornering, you
want either bushings that can deflect to absorb the twist, or a Heim that will
acommodate it without even noticing.
I have a modified Griggs torque arm, and the Griggs adjustable lower arms
(very thin urethane at the axle end, a Heim at the chassis end). When my car
is jacked up, and the axle is supported under the center section with the
springs and shocks removed, the pressure fom *one finger* will take the axle
from bumpstop-limited roll at one extreme to the other. No bind. Believe me,
when I finally installed that setup and started tuning the rear suspension to
match it, I noticed the difference! For handling, bind in the suspension is
_bad_.
> 6pt roll cage for convertible ???
> custom made 1K $$$ :(
I'm glad that you're doing that. The kind of use you contemplate for the car
makes running without something to keep the ground from meeting your head,
shall we say, *inadvisable*.
> For those of you that have done this, are these prices good ?????
Get all your Griggs stuff in one load. You might be able to negotiate a better
price that way.
> I also heard that replacing the K-member is a good idea for better
> alignement tuning, has anyone done this and if so, how much difference
> was felt in the upgrade ?
It is a win. Better corner entry, much less mid corner understeer. much lower
brake dive. Gawd, I _love_ spending other people's money.
> Also I am concerned a little about the rear axle and the lower control
> arms with the above setup. Loosing the upper control arms and the
> quads, leaves only 3 attachment points to restrict the axle from
> forward/backward motion - the lower control arms and the front of the
> torque arm.
No, actually the torque arm should take _no_ fore/aft loads. 100% of the
fore/aft loading should be transmitted by the lower arms. The torque arm
should be precisely that: a link that transmits thrust and braking torque
reactions, _and nothing else_.
The nose of my torque arm setup has been modified with a drop-link arrangement
that precludes it from transmitting any forces at all in the fore/aft or
lateral planes. It can only transmit forces in the vertical plane. Now, since
you're going to still be trying to use the car on the street, you might not
want the gear-noise symphony I get with my metal-on-metal (Griggs) lower arms.
If so, you'll want to stay with something like the P/T arms. This will allow
the axle to move fore/aft as much as perhaps 1/2" each way under acceleration
and braking shock loadings.
It's up to you to come up with a torque arm nose mounting that will serve your
needs, in that case. It must accept both fore/aft plunge and lateral movement
from roll steer. My drop link setup won't work with the combination of soft
lower arm bushings and dragrace launches.
> The only thing I could also do is the
> adjustable lower control arms, but so far I have not seen the need for
> that unless anyone out there can slap me silly and tell me "Oh yes, you
> do need these" with a good reasons :)
You _do_ need something better than the dragrace lower arms. if you don't mind
the additional noise, use the Griggs lower arms, and then you can do a simple
drop link mod on the nose fo the torque arm. The result is a car that handles
very nicely indeed.
> I am now treading in really uncharted territory and any info would
> be very useful.
There's nothing uncharted about it! Several of us here have been running a
setup similar to the one you are contemplating for some time now, and have
written about it extensively. The final tradeoff is simply in terms of gear
noise transmitted from the axle to the tub. I kinda like it, but I'm well
known as a complete loon. You might not
One last thing. Let's take the followup for this thread off to the Fordnatics
list only. It'll get very track-car-specific very quickly, and I don't want to
burden _both_ lists with copies of all responses. Please edit your headers
when following up on this thread, and drop the Mustangs list from responses.
Thanks!
28 Feb 1995
[email protected]
On Feb 28, Larry Harris wrote:
> Can Griggs lower arms (with the Heim joints) be used in a stock 4 link
> without some sort of additional axle locating device? (Panhard) I would
> like to upgrade my suspension pieces more gradually, perhaps adding the
> Torque arm / Panhard bar later on.
Yes, they most certainly can. And they will perform as well as any of the
aftermarket "launch bars" in terms of longitudinal axle location, as well as
providing the adjustable ride height feature. Additionally, they are
adjustable for _length_, which the others tend not to be. This is more
important than you think, as the Fox Mustangs are _far_ from square from the
factory.
As an example, when my car is adjusted for zero thrust angle (axle square to
the centerline of the car), and zero offset (axle centered under the car's
longitudinal centerline), the left side lower arm is 16.88 inches long center-
to-center, and the right side lower arm is 17.22 inches long. No "one-size-
fits-all" part will allow you to properly square up the car the last few
tenths of a degree, unless you slot the mounting holes with a die grinder.
Which is not exactly recommended!
The adjustability costs money, for sure. However, when you get the chassis
dialed in to the point that minor misalignments (like 2deg thrust angles!) are
noticeable, you have to pony it up one way or another.
In any case, the lower arms are completely independent of the Panhard/Torque
Arm pair. Those latter two are inseparable, but the lower arms are
independent. You can do them before, after, or not at all...
02 Mar 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Mar 2, Eugene Chu wrote:
> First, about the new spindles it comes with, is this the entire steering
> knuckle, with the mounting points for the caliper, tie rod stud, and
> MacPherson strut? On most cars, all of this is in one piece. If so,
> will it bolt up to the struts of the pre-94 cars and keep similar
> geometry? If it is indeed just a spindle, how does it integrate into
> the old steering knuckle?
It is the complete spindle forging. It is one piece, just like the old Fox
spindle. It will bolt right up to the existing strut of any '87-93 car, since
its mounting "ear" has the same dimensions. It can be used with any '79-86
struts (with the thicker ear for the spindles used with the 10" brakes) with a
spacer, the dimensions of which have been posted here before. But basically,
it's a bolt-on for the '87-93s.
>From "Building the Perfect Pony":
> > The other dimensional changes with the SN-95 spindle are all in favor
> > of improved performance. The ball joint taper is identical to the
> > earlier Fox-3 7deg design (the Moog K8259 is used on both the older
> > and the newer cars), so the spindle will bolt right up. The strut
> > mounting ear is 28mm lower than the Fox-3 spindle, which results in
> > 28mm more suspension travel in bump. This is extremely good news for
> > lowered cars, and those of us using the CCM camber plates with the 1"
> > spacers could then leave them out.
> >
> > The steering arm has also been modified fairly extensively, and
> > miraculously all the changes have gone in the right direction. The tie
> > rod bore (identical to the older Fox-3 bore) is located 10mm further
> > outboard and 3mm lower with respect to the ball joint, which
> > simultaneously improves bump steer and reduces the negative Ackerman
> > that plagued the Fox-3. The arm is 3mm longer, which will reduce the
> > overall steering ratio by a few percent, but the wheel position felt
> > by the driver may not be noticeably different as a result of the
> > reduced negative Ackerman.
> >
> > If these spindles are just bolted up on a Fox-3, the result will be
> > that the ride height will be lowered by 1.8mm and the track will be
> > increased by 6mm.
> Second, about the 5 lug axles, do they still use the same bearing and
> C-clip assembly like the pre-94 axles, or do they have the better thrust
> bearing arrangement?
The same 8.8" C-clip arrangement is used. You'll need to do custom
work to add in better axle bearings, like converting to the 9"
big-bearing axles, bearings, and retainers.
> Third, it looks like 17" wheels are a must to safely clear the
> components. Will something like the take-offs from the 1994 GTs have
> the proper back spacings and offsets to work on earlier cars? Already,
> I have visions of removing the plastic inner fenders, rolling the lips
> on the outer fenders, or even cutting them out completely.
With the right width and backspacing, they'll fit. Are they right? I don't
think that they are _far_ wrong, but I don'thave the dimensions for the wheels
you refer to to let you know. If you want to use 255s on an earlier car,
though, you'll almost certainly have to do a little lip rolling. It's no big
deal, and easily accomplished in the privacy of your own driveway...
02 Mar 1995
[email protected] (Brian Kelley)
[email protected]
Marty Gallagher writes:
> I'm going to put on a set of subframe connectors on my '88GT. The
> trouble is it seems that everyone makes their own brand.
That's because they're very simple to make and you can make so much profit
selling someone $15 worth of steel. Installing a set of pre-made connectors
is much more challenging than actually making them.
After the 60 or so requests for my alignment stuff, I'm a bit hesitant to
offer up the sub-frame connector info (as simple as it is). However, if anyone
else is interested, drop me a note.
It is my long standing opinion that anyone qualified to weld them onto your
car can make them (with a custom fit) for less money than what you can buy
them for.
In a similar vein, where, specifically, do the Global West units attach? I
have the impression that the GW units are located along the side of the rails.
We've always put them beneath the rail and attached them to both sides of the
rail via welding. It doesn't seem the GW attachment could be as effective if
the tube was located on the side.
06 Mar 1995
[email protected]
[email protected]
On Mar 6, Mike McFaul wrote:
> Hi folks, I've had the Stainless Steel Brake Corp. rear 10.5" disc
> brake kit on my car for almost exactly 2 years now and I need caliper
> kits and possibly a new piston or two for these things.
> My mechanic seems to think these bits look like Mecury Sable rear
> calipers...
Your mechanic has a pretty good eye, actually. These calipers were initially
used on the '87-88 T-bird Turbo Coupe. They have also seen duty on the '89
Super Coupe, and the '89-92 Thunderbirds with rear disks. Along the way, they
also got used on the '89-93 Taurus and SHO, and the '89-92 Sable. They are
also used on the '93 Mustang Cobra. So they are pretty common through the
rebuilder channels, and that's the way I'd recommend you go. The Raybestos
part numbers for those calipers, remanufactured and ready to install with
pads, is RC4267 and RC4268.
Last time I bought some, they were $85 each with a $40 core charge (I think- I
slept since then). They are moderately expensive as replacement rebuilt
calipers go, due to the parking brake provisions. Still, having rebuilt them
once or twice, I'd highly recommend that you buy rebuilts and simply swap
them, rather than going the DIY route. You can certainly do it, but it is a
significant hassle working with the parking brake self-adjuster.
Raybestos is not the only vendor for these calipers, of course, Wagner,
Western, or any of the other major rebuilders will do a fine job. If you're
_really_ determined to do the DIY rebuild, then I'd recommend snagging the
kits from a dealer, and not from the aftermarket. And you will also need the
shoip manual to have any chance of having working self-adjusters in the
parking brake mechanism after you're done. But don't say I didn't warn you...
14 Mar 1995
DARIUS RUDIS
Some statistics I collected before buying springs:
front rear drop
stock 425-550 180-200 0
eibach 450-580 205-250 1.5
600-720
515-685 140-300
700-850 200-260
susp tech 725 180-260 1.25
bbk 650 250 1.5
slot car 850-1000 195 .5
steeda ? ? 1 to 1.25
saleen ? ? 1.5
svo 650 200-300 .75 to 1
h&r 490-575 205-250 1.5
600-720 205-250
750-850 260-280
950-1050 260-300
Disclaimer: These are numbers out of many many magazines. Some were from the
company's catalogs too.
24 Apr 1995
Harjeet Dhillon
Rick, thanks for you reply....I don't have easy access to a FAX machine,
but the Mustang Illus is the current issue (May 95), so it should still be in
the shops here's the compatible MCs as listed in the article;
Raybestos # MC39037 (RH) cast iron 7/8 bore
78-81 Ford Fairmont,Granada,Futura,Zephyer(Merc)
Raybestos #MC39531 (RH) alum 21mm
81-86 Tbird, 82-86 Mustang, 83-86 Marquis (Merc)
Raybestos #MC 39310 (RH) cast iron 7/8 bore
81-83 Escor, Explorer, lynx, Mark VII (Linc)
Raybestos #MC 39027 (LH) cast iron 7/8 bore (LH)
76- 80 GM Monza, SkyHAwk,Starfire,SunBird
The article has a wealth of tips and advice regarding interchangebility and
compatibility and fitting....if you have any problems finding the mag, let me
know and I'll be happy to Xerox the article and mail it to your ADC
address...Cheers
03 May 1995
Tom Stangler
"5.0 DL"
I installed a rebuilt rack in my 87 over the last weekend. I was dreading the
job, but it turned out to be a very easy install, just a bit messy though. the
old rack had blown seals at both ends of the rack body. Leaking very bad.
REMOVAL:
To start the process, I had to remove the fluid from the power steering
system. I did that by opening the low pressure return line (to the pump) and
placing both ends of the break in a container to catch the fluid. I then took
the drive belt off the pump and turned the pump by hand to assist in the
removal of the fluid. this pushed the fluid out of the system into the catch
container. then I rotated the pump backwards and it spit some out the other
hose. After getting as much out as I could, I reconnected the hose.
I then raised the front of the car up and placed it on stands, and removed the
road wheels. I set the wheels straight ahead. Clean the steering box area of
the rack, getting all the grit you can off of the hoses.
I examined the tie rod ends to see where the threads were just so I could do a
quick toe set when done. then I unthreaded the inner tie rods from the outer
tie rods. an alternative would be to take the outer tie rods off of the
spindle. I just unthreaded one from the other.
Then I unbolted the two bolts that hold the rack to the front k-member/frame.
then the steering column flex joint must be unbolted. this is easy to reach
from below the car, just aft of the rack. A shot of WD-40 on the rack bushings
should make it easier in getting them apart from the frame. let it set a bit,
then pop the rack away from the frame. you can only go so far because the
hoses are still attached to the rack.
Get two plastic baggies and tie-wraps. Undo the two lines feeding to the rack
and as you remove them, place the baggies over the hose ends. Keeps the fluid
off of your hair. then you can yank the rack out of the car.
PRE-INSTALLATION:
Clean the hose lines well. Replace the o-rings and the teflon seals on both
ends. (these items are generally provided with the new rack.)
HINT #1: the teflon seals are smaller than the fittings they must go over. to
expand them, take a tube of calk, or like material that has the long plastic
tapered application tube on the end. Slide the teflon seals over the tapered
tube, expanding them. then QUICKLY remove them from the tube, and put them
over the fitting.
HINT #2: Mustang racks have limiters inside the rubber bellows to keep us from
putting our tires/wheels into the lower control arm. New racks DO NOT have
these limiters installed. You can use the ones from the old rack. Just slide
the rubber bellows off the end of the rack body, and turn the steering so the
rack moves the bellows away from the body, exposing the socket for the inner
tie rod end. Right next to the socket, on the inner side, it is a large
plastic c-clip snapped over the rack. Remove it and transfer it to the new
rack. do the same for the other end.
HINT #3: flush the pump with clean fluid. Use the same process as used to
empty it.
INSTALLATION: Just the reverse of removal. Just a couple of hints... --after
you hook up the steering column, check to see that you have the same amount of
rotations from the steering wheel dead center to the stops. adjust as
necessary by disconnecting the rack from the steering column and repositioning
and reattaching. --if you forgot the steering limiters, you can install them
with the rack on the car. Just pull the boot back and turn the wheel till the
socket is exposed. snap the clips on the rack.
Summary----took about 2 hours. Saved $170 in installation labor. the rack was
only $142 for a rebuilt TRW unit from Pep Boys. Add some fluid, and several
baggies, and it is not an expensive job at all.
23 May 1995
Brian Kelley
Karl Brandt writes:
> >See some of the World Challenge footage for examples of the Baer
> >Mustang with 5 or 7 degrees of negative camber out-braking 'vettes with
> >SLA's and much less negative camber.
> >
> >Modern DOT race tires are designed to work well under braking despite
> >large amounts of negative camber.
>
> I find it hard to believe that they could get their best braking with the
> front tires cambered. Let me take a stab at an explanation.
Of course they cant'. But the compromise in braking is minor compared
to the improvement in cornering speed, lap times and tire life.
> These mustangs are lowered well into the range where they are getting
> positive camber gain in bump. When braking the nose dives and
> pushes the suspension into bump so they will be getting more positive
> camber. When combined properly with high negative static cambers, this
> should result in near 0 camber under braking.
We've got to clarify a misconception here. Let's go directly to
real world data.
'91 Mustang, stone stock suspension:
Wheel Height Camber Angle Roll Center height
(mm) (degrees) (mm)
99 -1.715 -277
79 -1.792 -208
59 -1.722 -146
39 -1.532 -87
20 -1.241 -32
0 0.864 20
As you can see, wheel camber does not begin to go positive until you've
compressed the suspension nearly 4 inches. At that point, the change is very
minor.
So they've still got a very large amount of negative camber under max
braking.
> >Which weight transfer? The unsprung xfer? The sprung xfer? The weight
> >transfer as a result of body roll? They're all different. Puhn covers
> >this quite well in _How to Make Your Car Handle_. I great value at $13.
>
> I not sure which one I was talking about. I'll have to reread this
> section. It looks like my model was way too simplistic.
No problem there. Puhn was my first suspension book and it took me many re-
readings before I thought I understood what was being said.
> >Indeed. And you'll have a great fun unweighting the inside rear wheel
> >in the corners, particularly when exiting right hand turns.
>
> I'm sure your right as Puhn states this too. I'm just not clear on what
> the mechanism is that causes it. Yet more rereading is in my future. I really
> wish I'd learn these things the first time.
In the Mustang rear suspension, much of the problem is suspension bind (from
various sources). You want the rear suspension to be free to follow the road.
One of the big strengthes of the live rear axle is the lack of camber change
under roll, compression and jounce. The rear really wants to keep both wheels
planted, if the suspension will allow it. When you won't let it do that (for
whatever reason) you start to pick up the tires. When the inside tire starts
to lift, the outside loses camber..
I don't run a rear anti-roll bar in my Capri with a 3 link rear suspension and
panhard bar. I tune the understeer and oversteer primarily with the front bar
and springs. If you get the rates correct, you should mainly only have to
tweak the front bar and alignment. But my situation is a bit unusual - the
car track width changes radically from the 16x12 race wheels to the 17x8 or
17x9 street wheels. The change in track width requires an entirely different
front bar.
31 May 1995
Brian Kelley
Dave Williams writes:
> Antidive on the Foxes is controlled by the inclination of the lower
>control arm. There's not much you can do to the pickups, short of
>replacing the K-member.
I raised both of my lower pickups ('91 K-member) by .90" and was being fairly
conservative.
I could have left the front alone and just raised the rear, very significantly
increasing the anti-dive.
A friend of mine has a rear pickup that is actually raised over the rear K-
member mounting tab. I'd speculate that it is 1.5 or 2" above the stock
location. So it is possible to get more anti-dive than anyone would ever
want.
It took me only 3 casual hours to layout the new location, drill the 8 new
holes, weld plugs into the old holes and grind them flush. With a jig, it
would take less than an hour. I did the work with the K-member out of the
car, but some of my friends did it with the engine and K-member installed.
02 Jun 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Jun 1, Paul Rimmer wrote:
> I need some advice. Last night I installed the Maier Strut Tower Brace
> (STB) on my '93 5.0 LX. My car only has 25,000 miles and has never been in
> an accident, is not a convertible and has the Global West SFC's (which are
> great by the way).
>
> All I can say is that I am VERY dissappointed in the QA that must have gone
> into the STB.
>
> This SUCKS. There is NO WAY that my car is this far out. A STB constructed
> within tolerances should not screw up the hood alignment.
Really? The STB is jig-welded, and holds tolerances of better than +-.125".
The Fox tub is assembly-line welded, fudged, and tweaked, and is very lucky to
hold tolerances from point-to-point of any better than +-.5" to .75". If you
look at the shop manuals, the "control points" (the actual hard points that
the body stampings are supported on during assembly) are spec'd to +- .125".
The "reference points", which are usually located elswhere on the same
stampings that contain control points, are +- .220". Now, anything that is
"hung" on the controlled stampings is going to wander even further, up until
you get to the bumper location specs, which are toleranced at +- 1.0" (one
inch- that's not a typo).
The bottom line is that these bodyshells wander _all over the place_,
dimensionally. Much skilled bandaid work is done on the assembly line to hang
the fenders, doors, and hoods so that the chassis alignment, as well as the
fit and finish, is "acceptable". But the tolerances are as wide as a barn
door, and they _have_ to be. If they were tighter, then folks like us probably
couldn't afford to buy the car.
My suggestion is that your pride and joy is a little bit less straight (in
some absolute sense) than you believe it to be. Mine sure as hell was- several
critical dimensions spec'd in the manual were off by more than .5" back even
before I started using the car on the track. My advice would be to leave the
STB in place, and then rehang the hood (and/or fenders, if need be) to reset
the sheetmetal alignment. Chances are that in an hour or two, you can do a
better job lining things up than the factory assemblers did in any case, with
or without the STB. In any case, waiting for the next batch of STBs to come
off the jig isn't too likely to accomplish much other than delaing your
project.
One thing to watch out for, though. If you install the Maier STB with the
firewall mount points located up too high on the firewall, the stampoed
reinforcement under the hood _may_ interfere with the diagonal tubes in the
STB as you lower it. This interference can force the hood to bend, and will
produce come really ugly misalignments. I'd suggest that you check very
carefully for interferences of this type. Clay can help here.
I'm not trying to cover for Maier, here. I'm merely trying to relate my
experience with trying to bolt on tight-tolerance jig-welded stuff to loose-
tolerance unibodies for the last few years. _Nothing_ ever fits first try,
except in the case of absolute blind *luck*.
Seriously, folks, the relationship between the upper strut towers and the
firewall can very easily vary by a great deal between cars that have the *same
assembly date*. What matters is that the car be straight with respect to
itself, not that it conform to some absolute set of "correct" dimensions. They
just flat weren't built with those kinds of tolerances in mind, and that's a
cost savings that we all enjoy the fruits of.
That wasn't what you wanted to hear, but I hope that it helps anyway!
02 Jun 1995
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
Scott Griffith writes:
>I'm not trying to cover for Maier, here. I'm merely trying to relate
>my experience with trying to bolt on tight-tolerance jig-welded stuff
>to loose-tolerance unibodies for the last few years. _Nothing_ ever
>fits first try, except in the case of absolute blind *luck*.
to bring people up to i went back to Maier Racing and complained about
the interference between the STB's crossmember and the distributor. Bill Maier
expressed surprise, saying that he had never had anybody complain about it
before, and showed me several mustangs that had about 1/2" to 3/4" of
clearance. i'm not sure what's going on, and i know skod said the stock and
convertible mounts result in the same engine height, but i think my engine is
sitting up higher compared to engines with stock mounts (i have the
convertible motor mounts).
at any rate, he suggested putting a spacer between the strut towers and the
STB. i went to OSH and bought some fairly thick grade 8 washers. yesterday, i
put the STB back in with the washers. i'm pleased to report that i now have
1/4" of clearance between the STB and the rubber cover of the distributor. i
was concerned about using the washers as spacers, but i think the downward
force on the tops of the strut towers would just be the weight of the front
suspension and wheels.
HOWEVER. i think Paul's concerns about quality assurance have some validity.
quite simply, the holes in the backing place do not match the holes in the
STB. i don't know why i didn't notice this before. you see, i had put in the
STB with only the three middle holes drilled because i had some concerns about
the misalignment between the brace and my car and didn't want to have a lot of
holes in my firewall if i was going to be exchanging the STB. yesterday, i
decided to complete the installation. using the STB as a template, i drilled
the two outer holes in the firewall. to check my work, i placed the backing
plate against the firewall and lo and behold, the holes didn't line up. i was
severely pissed, thinking that i had screwed up the marking of the holes.
after checking the backing plate against the STB, i found that the middle
holes match up fine, but the outer ones barely miss overlapping. in other
words, they're off by 3/8" or so. so, i drilled matching holes in the backing
plate and put the STB in. it didn't take quite as much force to put it back
in as it took the first time.
by the way, that backing plate was tough to drill. i used lots of oil and a
2500 rpm drill and it took a long time. (no, my bits aren't dull.)
comments? i'm going to thunderhill for saturday - if you're there and you
want to see it, come over. i'll be #4, in a somewhat blue mustang.
-teddy
p.s. avoid dropping nuts in the cowl area. i dropped one, which promptly
went all the way over to the driver's side and dropped into a curving passage
in the corner, never to be seen again.
12 Jun 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Jun 11, [email protected] wrote:
> I was wondering if the front discs off an SVO will fit the
> spindles of any 87-93 5.0 Mustang? Also will the '94 and up front end
> parts interchangable with the SVO's? Just wondering since they are both
> 5 lug set ups.
The answer to the first part of the question is "yeas". The SVO rotors are a
direct swap onto the '87'93 5.0L Fox spindle.
The second part of the question is _also_ yes, but with qualifications. The
SN95 spindle/hub/rotor is completely unique. You'll need to replace them all
as a unit. The good news is that they are a perfect fit on the Fox ball joint
stud, tie rod end, and strut mount ear.
The SN95 unit hub-bearing technology is completely different that the old
tapered roller bearing arrangement used on the earlier cars. There is no
commonality in the spindle snout at all, and there is no preload adjustment to
be done with the retaining nut. You just reef the sucker down to 250ft-lb and
have done with it...
There are some subtle geometric changes that are created by the SN95 spindle
that make it very desirable as well. The strut mounting ear is 28mm lower
(with respect to the spindle centerline) than the Fox-3 spindle, which results
in 28mm more suspension travel in bump. This is extremely good news for
lowered cars, and those of us using the CCM camber plates with the 1" spacers
could then leave the spacers out.
The steering arm has also been modified fairly extensively, and miraculously
all the changes have gone in the right direction. The tie rod bore is located
10mm further outboard and 3mm lower with respect to the ball joint, which
simultaneously improves bump steer and reduces the negative Ackerman that
plagued the Fox-3. The arm is 3mm longer, which will reduce the overall
steering ratio by a few percent, but the wheel position felt by the driver
really isn't noticeably different as a result of the reduced negative
Ackerman.
If these spindles are just bolted up on a Fox-3, the result will be that front
bump travel will be increased by 28mm, the ride height will be lowered by
1.8mm, and the track will be increased by 6mm.
Then you can just snag the 13" PBR brakes, and you're in *fat city*. This
change comes highly recommended. All the parts come bundled together in the
FMS M-2300-K brake kit, by the way, along with the right rear axles and so
on...
12 Jun 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
> Ok, assuming I'm still running the old tapered roller bearing
> arrangement (I am.) What is the current wisdom regarding setting the
> preload? Is it still torque it to 30 ft-lbs, loosen, and then finger-
> tight? Is this technique good enough for the track, or is it just for
> a grocery-getter? I'm replacing rotors and bearings tonight...
I still like the technique I used to use, which is to torque to maybe 20 ft-
lb. Then, spin the rotor to fully squash everything down and feel for any
"tight spot" that might indicate that the one of the cups was mis-seated in
the bore, back off, and retighten just pulling down in the wrench with the
last joint of the little finger (which I had carefully calibrated to 20in-lb,
of course)....
The shop manual specs call for 10-28 in-lb for final adjustment. I don't have
an in-lb torque wrench, but I do know that my box-end wrench that fits that
nut is 14" long. So I give about a 2lb tug on the opposite end of it, and call
it close enough.
If you're going to be running the car on the track, you'll want to stray
towards the upper end of that range, simply to make the assembly feel
"tighter" to the tech inspector. As the spindle snout wears under the outer
bearing area, the outer bearing will have more room to move, and will give a
false positive to the wiggle test in the tech inspection process. I know
several folks who routinely overtorque the crap out of their front bearings
just to get through tech, and then reset the torque properly before going out
for their first session. That's one good thing about the SN95 stuff. There is
_no play_ for the tech inspectors to get wierded out by...
12 Jun 1995
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
by the way, for those of you who are considering the use of 16" wheels with
the M2300-K brake kit:
the only 16" wheels i am aware of which will fit over the 13" rotor + caliper
combination are the CSA Type 35. these wheels are hard to find, and all of
the places i called which had advertised them said they didn't have them any
more and weren't planning to carry them any more. Diversified Products gave me
the number of the importer, Autotrend, in new york (it's a 516 area code).
when i called, they told me they had 20 of them but that they were being
discontinued.
because i didn't want to get stuck not being able to find 16" wheels that i
could just slap on, i decided to order the CSA Type 35 wheels immediately.
they are 16x8, 5-lug, with 24 mm offset.
you may want to call them and order some before they disappear. i don't know
for sure that they are being discontinued, but i didn't want to take a chance
on that. please note that if you call the autotrend number advertised in the
magazine, you may get some moron who tells you that the CSA Type 35 won't fit
at all, that they don't have any, and try to steer you toward 17" wheels at
$1000 for the set. (ask me how i know.) so, i'd call DP and get the right
autotrend number from them - or e-mail me and i'll try to find the number when
i get home.
if you still want to look for a different wheel, you'll probably have more
luck if you try out the 2-piece wheels, since they are thinner than 1-piece
wheels which are cast in a single piece. i tried a prime 2-piece wheel before
giving up, and the prime *nearly* fit. if i had ground down the corners of
the caliper a bit, the wheel would have fit.
12 Jun 1995
[email protected]
> >There are some subtle geometric changes that are created by the SN95
> >spindle that make it very desirable as well. The strut mounting ear is
> >28mm lower (with respect to the spindle centerline) than the Fox-3
> >spindle, which results in 28mm more suspension travel in bump. This is
> >extremely good news for lowered cars, and those of us using the CCM
> >camber plates with the 1" spacers could then leave the spacers out.
>
> I am currently running the CCM camber plates with the 1" spacers AND I
> have installed the M2300K brakes with the SN95 spindles. Should I
> remove
> the 1" spacers? What are the advantages/disadvantages of doing this?
Long answer: maybe, maybe not. I don't know what ride height you're running,
nor do I know what springs and dampers you have or what sort of driving you're
going to do. You need to do some quick testing and determine whether or not
you're in a position to run out of droop travel during hard cornering. Running
out of droop travel is hard on the struts, and will cause you some nasty
transient understeer as the front suspension binds up and transfers weight off
the heavily loaded outside front wheel.
Running out of bump travel is _worse_.
If you're running high-rate springs, and are only lowered about 1" from stock,
you may not need to lose the spacers (the Msutang is very short on bump travel
as delivered, and doesn't come close to using up all its droop travel). On the
other hand, you may find that tuning the last inch of bump with the bump
rubbers on the strut shaft is a really useful thing, so you may _choose_ to
take them out, just to play with using the bump rubbers as an additional stage
of progression in your effective spring rate.
Short answer: search me. Where your chosen static ride height puts you in your
total suspension travel, and the nature of your bump stops, are both very
useful tuning tools. Time to go testing and find out!
13 Jun 1995
[email protected] (Robert Whitley)
fordnatics@
About wheels for the M-2300-K kit.
The CSA Type 35 (16 x 8 x 4.5) wheels have a negative offset of 24 mm (coutesy
T. Chen) which tells me that, as viewed from above the car, the wheel
centerline is located 24 mm from the wheel mounting flange toward the center
line of the car.
The stated M-2300-K requirement is 5.75 inches (146 mm) of backspace. Taking
the wheel width as 8 inches (203 mm) and assuming that the wheel width is
measured from the outside of the wheel flange (just like the backspace is
measured), I calculate the offset requirement as 146 - 203/2 = 45 mm. This is
more than the CSA Type 35 supplies. Doesn't this mean that the CSA 35 wheel
center is about 20 mm (0.8 in) closer toward the car center line than is
required?
If wheel width is defined from then inside edge of the rim, then this estimate
should be reduced by the thickness of the rim edge, but it still seems to me
that the wheel has too little negative offset.
Is this correct and does it matter?
14 Jun 1995
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
>> do you remember what size fittings you got for the prop valve?
>> i think i need to find either 1/8 NPT male x 1/4 NPT female or
>> 1/8 NPT male x 3/8 female.
>
>It _should_ be 1/8 NPT male to 7/16-24 SAE 45deg female inverted
>flare, if I remember correctly.
....
>To tell which tube nut your particular agglomeration of Ford nightmare
>brake plumbing is, measure the hex on the tube nut. At least,
>thank Gawd, all the Ford SAE tube nut hexes are consistently the same size
>as the threadings below. The ISO hexes are 2mm bigger, if I remember
>correctly- I'd have to dig through my notes to be sure, though.
>Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.
first the good news: the ISO hexes are indeed 2mm bigger. skod, i'm afraid the
little faith you have in ford is misplaced. last night i disconnected the
brake line union at the passenger side. i needed a 7/16" flare wrench for the
fitting. however, the 7/16" tube nut that came with my kit doesn't fit into
the union. on the other hand, a 3/8" tube nut fits perfectly. so it looks
like the tube nuts at the union are 3/8" threading with 7/16" hexes. at least
the 7/16" tube nut that came with the kit has a 7/16" hex.
is it any wonder that i'm a little gunshy about ordering braided lines from
earl's for the rear calipers? but after checking a bunch of times, i've
almost convinced myself that i need -3AN to 3/8" banjo flex hose (10 inches
long) and -3AN to 7/16"x24 inverted flare tubing adapters.
now i have to figure out how i'm going to support the adapter so that the hard
line doesn't fatigue.
more brake horror stories: the 10 mm tube nut connected to the bottom of my
master cylinder stripped while i was trying to get it off with a flare wrench.
visegrips didn't work, either. i cut the brake line, and then because i'm
stubborn, kept trying to get the tube nut off. i ended up drilling into the
tube nut and using a punch to twist it out. i'm not sure, but i think the
sticking was due to galling. the master cylinder appears to be aluminum, as
is the tube nut... good thing i had to cut the line to put the 7/16" nut on
anyway.
since i don't have any brake line tools and i don't want to go out and buy
them in order to make one connection, i took the line out. i'm planning to go
to a shop and have them cut, bend, and double flare it for me. think grand
auto can do it?
i'm sorely tempted to do what skod did and get rid of all this martian brake
plumbing.
27 Jun 1995
Tom Stangler
= >I looked in Mathis' Mustang handling book last night. Mathis' says the
= >struts are different also when you change to later spindles - something
= >about the later spindles being 'thinner.' I don't know for sure, but
= >thought I would pass on the warning.
Theodore A. Chen stroked the keyboard.....
= i guess it's time for tom stangler to post his template again.
= it's for a spacer that allows the use of '86 and earlier struts
= with the '87-'93 spindles.
the 86 front struts are useable with 87+ spindles if you make a spacer plate
and do a bit of grinding to make the holes in the strut match the plate.
template is attached.
...
take a piece of steel plate, .23" thick (or two pieces, .115 each)
and cut it to 1.25 x 3.50 in size. Bevel one corner with a .25 angle.
drill 2 holes .640 diameter, 2.25 apart, centered on the
center line of the plate, with the first one .62 from the beveled end.
<-------------3.50 +/- .10 ------------------>
_____________________________________________
| | ^
| | |
|<-.62 ----> | |
| + (centerline) + | 1.25 +/- .10
| | |
\ | |
bevel \__________________________________________| |
(.25) ^
<-----2.25 +/- .03 ->
05 Jul 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Jul 5, Chris Behier wrote:
> I got a question for those who like to fiddle with their '94 spindles.
> I was hoping to clean out and repack my front bearings yesterday, but
> when I took off the bearing cap off, I saw this _strange_ contraption
> that holds the bearing bolt on. Anyone know how to get this bolt off
> without damaging anything? Also, anyone know of a good source of
> Timken bearings for a '94 GT ?
The composite nut that you see is self-locking, and is to be tightened to 250-
300ft-lb. It runs right up on the threaded end of the spindle snout. To remove
it, you'll ned a 36mm socket and one _heck_ of a breaker bar. Twist hard
enough, and it comes right off. The torque speci is critical to the locking
behavior of the nut, Ther eis not cotter pin or similar positive locking
arrangement, so be sure and get the torque _right_ when you reinstall it.
The 2-row, angular-contact ball bearing hub is not intended to be rebuilt. In
particular, there are no field-replaceable parts available separately, as Ford
obtains the hub as a uunit from the vendor (Toyo Corp. in Japan). The hub is
serviced as a unit, as the outer races for the balls are ground directly into
the hub forging itself, and not pressed in place as they would be with a Fox
tapered roller setup.
You can tear down the hub for cleaning and repacking, though. You'll need to
remove the internal-expanding retainer clip that hold the inboard and outboard
inner races together. The outboard race will come right out, and the grease
seal (which is very fragile, and is not available separately- handle with
care, or be prepared to scrap the hub!) can be removed to allow removal of the
inboard race. The balls and cages can then be removed for cleaning,
inspection, and repacking. As they say, assembly is the reverse of
disassembly...
I cleaned out the factory fill of grease and replacked mine with Mobil 1
grease before the initial installation. These very efficient ball bearings run
considerably cooler than equivalently loaded tapered rollers, and lubricant
life has been excellent so far on the track. However, they aren't really
"maintainable" as such. When they start to go away, you simply scrap the
entire hub and replace it outright. The cost for a complete new hub is $71.50
from the dealer.
I have a hub design that uses standard Timken tapered roller bearings, and
fits the very unusual 34.5mm spindle snout diameter used by the SN95. I have
protoypes of these parts, obtained back when I didn't believe that the SN95
hub would hold up in track use, but haven't run them yet. The roller-bearing
hubs were *ruinously* expensive to have fabricated, since there's no such
thing as a standard tapered roller that will fit that snout diameter. High-
precision shims and preload spacers had to be fabricated, and that stuff ain't
cheap. It was an amusing exercise, and I'll run those parts someday just to
get some miles on them, but I can assure you that they are *not* economically
viable.
For the SN95s of the world, the answer is to run the stock hub, and replace
them when they start to go west. My guesstimate is that they will hold up to
20 or 30 hors of serious sticky-tire track abuse without drama. Just keep an
ear on them. When an angular-contact ball bearing starts to crap out under
cornering loads, you _can't miss it_...
06 Jul 1995
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
looks like i'll need to slot my SN95 spindles to let the cobra calipers
scrunch down a little more, away from my 16" rims. i was planning on slotting
about 1/8" to 1/4". i'm going to do the minimum amount necessary to establish
0.060" clearance between my modified calipers and the 16" rims.
how should i go about slotting these spindles? how precisely does it have to
be done? that is, can i just mark the parts to be slotted and do it with the
spindles on the car?
and what would you use to do the slotting? i have a dremel, but i doubt it's
up to the task. and my 2500 RPM drill probably runs too slowly...
06 Jul 1995
[email protected]
On Jul 6, Teddy Chen wrote:
> how should i go about slotting these spindles? how precisely does it
> have to be done? that is, can i just mark the parts to be slotted and
> do it with the spindles on the car?
>
> and what would you use to do the slotting? i have a dremel, but i doubt
> it's up to the task. and my 2500 RPM drill probably runs too slowly...
The one and only way to so this is with a mill. Oh, sure, a Dremel, or a die
grinder, or a freakin' rattail file will do it too, but you want it done
_right_. So pull the spindles and send 'em off to a machine shop, and have it
done properly. It's just not worth the grief trying to kluge it, and ending up
with non-parallel slots that you have to mung further.
Those are very nice, very tough, heat-treated 4000-series alloy steel
forgings. If you want to do it with a Dremel, buy lots of stones, and we'll
see you next season. It'll make porting a set of heads with a Dremel seem
_easy_, and quick...
07 Jul 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
>> I made an interesting discovery, the outer wheel bearings were partially
>> plastic or maybe teflon.
>
> Actually, I believe the carrier is made from glass-impregnated
>nylon. they may be OK for street use, but if you ever plan to
>road-race the car, these are paperweights (to paraphrase Scott
>Griffith.)
As I understand it this was a mid-year change in '88 and lasted through the
'93 models. Here are the Timken part numbers for the steel cage bearings.
These should be good for other manufactures too.
Bearing Race Set
Outer LM12749 LM12710 A-5
Inner LM48548 LM48510 A-12
>> I went
>> ahead and replaced them with *all* metal aftermarket bearings
>> because I figured with over 60,000 miles it couldn't hurt. Is this
>> an effort to save money by Ford. I wasn't really impressed.
>
> Good for you! I replaced the OEM bearings with steel caged units
>the first chance I got. The problem I have is, I can NOT find Timken
>wheel bearings to save my life! Every place I've checked carries their
>own store brand, or some cheapo brand I've never heard of that's
>invariably either made in Mexico, or dosen't have the country of
>manufacture on them. For serious racing, these are paperweights too.
You're looking in the wrong place. Stay out of auto parts stores. For bearings
go to a bearing store. Really, industrial bearing suppliers are typically
cheaper and usually Timken or other quality bearings. There is a chain called
King Bearing that myself and others have had good luck with. If your not near
them, check your yellow pages under 'bearings'. There are usually several
listed.
07 Jul 1995
Brian Kelley
[email protected]
A couple of my friends have been wondering about the downforce generated by
the various rear spoiler configurations of the 3rd generation Mustang and they
decided to measure it:
The downforce measurment was made by measuring the downforce generated at the
same spot on the rear hatch (midline and near the latch).
Downforce was measured at 0 mph, 55 mph, 85mph and the data was linearly
extrapolated (this should be conservative) to 100mph.
LX GT Saleen
0 mph 25 27 30
55 mph 30 35 45
80 mph 40 44 85
100mph 48 51 117
12 Jul 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Jul 10, Michael Herrmann wrote:
> I am trying to determine if there are two or three different brake
> setups. I know there is the cobra setup with the twin piston calipers
> and the 13" rotors, up front, and the 11.6" rear discs. I also know
> there is the mustang GT brakes, which are, I believe, 11" front vented
> and something like 10.25" rear solid discs. Anyone have the exact
> specs, including caliper piston size?
>
> My question is, does the GT have the same brakes as the regular LX
> V-6 cars? Does the V-6 car have the same suspension mounting points
> as the GT cars in the rear? In other words could I swipe a 94/95 LX axle
> and bolt it under my 92 LX 5.0? Does it have the quad shock mounts, and
> is it as durable as the 5.0L axle?
Hoo, boy. There are _many_ different Fox and SN-95 brake configurations. You
want 'em all? I've been meaning to type this stuff in for a while now- so here
you go!
SN95 base models: 66mm front caliper, 10.9 x 1.03" front rotor
38mm rear caliper, 10.47 x .50" rear rotor
27mm master cylinder
Pad outlines: D310 front, D627 rear
SN95 Cobra: 2x38mm front caliper, 12.9 x 1.02" front rotor
38mm rear caliper, 11.6 x .75" rear rotor
26.4mm master cylinder (1.04")
Pad outlines: D412 front, D627 (?) rear
Interesting side note: The Cobra rear caliper is made with an identical raw
casting when compared with the base car, but is machined with different anchor
bracket dimensions and a wider rotor clearance slot. It therefore needs
thinner pads, so that that FMSI pad outline number is probably *wrong*. If
anybody knows the FMSI number of the Cobra pads for certain, I'd love to hear
it. My old FMSI book doesn't list it.
1993 Fox Cobra: 60mm front caliper, 10.91 x 1.03" rotor
45mm rear caliper, 10.17 x .945" rotor
27mm master cylinder
Pad Outlines: D431 front (phenolic piston),
D199 front (steel piston), D347 rear
The front calipers are '87-up Fox-3 parts, but the rotors are unique-they have
3/4 more offset to allow the use of symmetrical wheels fore and aft. The rear
axle is the LSC/T-bird Turbo Coupe unit, with its 1.5" wider track.
1987-1993 Fox 5.0L: 60mm front caliper, 10.91 x 1.03" rotor
Rear drums
21mm master cylinder
Pad Outlines: D431 front (phenolic piston),
Earlier and 2.3L : forget' em... 60mm calipers, 10.06 x .870 rotors
Rear drums
21mm non-fast-fill master cylinder
Pad Outlines: D310 front
1984-1986 SVO: 73mm front caliper, 10.91 x 1.03" rotor
54mm rear caliper, 11.33 x .947" rotor
28mm non-fast-fill master cylinder
Pad outlines: D200 front (phenolic piston),
D150 or D346 (metal piston), D204 rear.
The axle is the '82-83 Lincoln Continental unit, with its 1.5" wider track.
Now: the short answer to your rear end swap question. You can certainly do it,
BUT the track will be 1.5" wider than your Fox-3 track (in addition to being
5-lug). It's the same problem we always had with swapping in the Lincoln
LSC/T-bird Turbo Coupe axle. If you can acommodate the track change (with
flares or wheel offset), you're all set.
Now- aren't you glad you asked?
12 Jul 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Jul 11, [email protected] wrote:
> I have an '89 Cougar, V-6 with about 143,000 miles on it. If it matters I
> live in Florida, and most of the miles are freeway miles...
> I get only about 12K to 15K miles on a brake turning before the familiar
> pedal pulsating takes place indicating warped rotors.... They
> also say that a heavier duty rotor might help.
Heavier duty might be hard to arrange for, unfortunately. But you can
certainly try out different vendors, some of whom might have better materials
or processes that result in more warp-resistant rotors.
Your '89 is the first year of the MN-12 platform, as I recall, so it will have
the separate sealed-bearing hub and rotor arrangement now seen on the SN95
Mustangs. Those MN-12 rotors do have something of a reputation for being a bit
bitchy. The first thing you can try is to go to a good quality aftermarket
vendor for replacement rotors, such as Bendix or Raybestos.
My findings with the old Fox unicast (one-piece) hub/rotors was that the
aftermarket QC was very much better than the OEM parts, and the rotors were
far more warp resistant in my track applications. This may solve your problem
outright. The good news, also, is that the aftermarket rotors are generally
about half the price of the OEM parts purchased through a dealer. If you're
not comfortable doing the rotor swap yourself, get it done by a _good_ (non-
dealer) shop who will tell you where the parts are coming from.
The second thing that you can do to help out is to minimize mounting stresses,
by being careful with your wheel mounting lug torques. There's great
temptation on the part of the dealer wrenches to just reef the lug nuts down
to a bazillion ft-lb with an impact wrench, all at once, in no particular
pattern. You might consider hand-torquing them to 90ft-lb in a star pattern.
This minimizes take-up distortion as the assembly is torqued down. Warping OEM
rotors because of uneven tightening has been reported now and again on these
cars, and it's easy to avoid if you take the time.
Personally, I suspect that the aftermarket castings will do the trick. I'm no
fan of the Ford OEM rotor castings, and I've burned enough of them up on my
track car to have grounds to slag them off. Try a set of Bendix rotors, if you
can find them, and use 'em in good health.
16 Jul 1995
Tom Stangler
fordnatics
My 87 Mustang ate the multi-function switch the other day. The headlight
circuit melted the contact wiper holder inside the housing due to the load. I
figured it was time to install the FORD fix to the lighting power circuit
(#15).
(for you who have not experienced this, the #15 circuit is the one that
carries power for the lights, both headlight and fog. the wire is too small.
the fix is to rewire the circuit using bigger gauge wire as per FORD tech
bulletin 89-17-11)
The rewire went well. All melted parts (switch and connector block) were
easily replaced. then the op test. NO WIPERS or WASH.
I checked the wiring to that part of the switch and power was present. all
wiring was intact. then I looked at the new switch. the new switch (p/n F0ZZ-
13K359-B) was a different part number than the old melted switch (p/n E8ZC-
13K359-AA) that I took out of the car, and different from the part number on
the bulletin (p/n E8ZZ-13K359-A).
AND the contacts for the wiper circuit were physically LOCATED in different
places on the mating area of the connector! After disassembly of both the new
and the old switches, and some work with the ohm meter, I was able to
determine the designations for the new switch. see the obligatory ascii dwg
below.
(NOTE! R1 and R2 could not be determined exactly. but in that they are just
the ends of a variable resistor for the intermittent wipers I would expect
that it doesn't make much difference which is which) (I hope).
The connector block that mates with this switch has removeable contacts, so
rewiring the switch was easy. All the slots are available on the connector
block. you just need to relocate the B+, the W, and the R2 contacts in the
block. Everything works now.
but you might want to keep this in mind if you go to do this repair and you
get one of the new switches. they will work if you take a moment to rewire the
connector block.
______________________
| ___ ___ |
| R2 H |
| |
| ___ |
| B+ ---------
| R1 | |
| | |
| | W | OLD MELTED SWITCH
| | | CONTACT POSITIONS
| |
| ----------
| |
| |
| L I |
| ___ ___ |
|____________________|
______________________
| ___ ___ |
| B+ H |
| |
| |
| ---------
| R1 | |
| | |
| W | | NEW SWITCH
| | R2 | | CONTACT POSITIONS
| | |
| ----------
| |
| |
| L I |
| ___ ___ |
|____________________|
B+ main power into the wiper circuits
H high speed wipers
L low speed wipers
W washer motor
I intermittent wipers
R1 one end of resistanc ckt for intermittent wipers
R2 other end of resistand for intermittent wipers
09 Aug 1995
"Theodore A. Chen"
>Must say I am disappointed at the immense price differential between the
>17 inch tire/wheel sets that I like, and the equivalent 16 inch setup.
tell me about it. although PPI does sell 17" wheels for about $175 each, 17"
rubber costs too much.
>Is it possible to make the M2300-K brake upgrade work with 16 inch
>wheels? Clearly this would vary somewhat from wheel to wheel and
>evidently there was one maker who offered one that supposedly would work.
>However, as reported earlier in this forum, that wheel has been discontinued.
yes, it is possible. the wheels you refer to are the CSA Type 35, which fit
the baer PBR brakes without modification. however, the cobra calipers are
significantly thicker than the PBR calipers used on the corvette and in the
baer racing kit. i ground mine down to give more clearance. i think an easier
way would be to buy the caliper housings from a chevy dealer for $75 each, and
sell the cobra caliper housings.
but that's not all. it looks as if the rotor offset may be different. other
people have been able to run CSA Type 35 wheels with the PBR brakes without
*any* modification. after grinding on the caliper housings, i found that the
frame (the mounting ring) itself interferes. one way to deal with this would
be to run wheels with a larger offset than stock, so that the bead relief (the
part that interferes) sits further outboard. my short term solution was to use
1/4" wheel spacers, which works fine for the street. but i did not want to
run this at the track, and so i elected to slot the spindles and cut down the
rotors. the spindles have been slotted 1/4", and the rotors are being cut
down 0.2 inches radially, leaving me with a 12.6" rotor.
another l*st member has determined that HRE modular wheels will fit. these
wheels cost $350. each. other modular wheels may fit, particularly if you
use two outer halves without bead reliefs and assemble the rim inside the
tire.
you may want to try out other rims. check out two- or three-piece rims. these
are thinner than rims that are cast in one piece.
to answer your specific questions:
>Obviously the main gotcha is in front where the bigger rotor lives. Grinding
>on the caliper seems to be a given, but can all (OK most, ....all right any) 1
>6
>inch wheels be accommodated without reducing the rotor OD? If the rotor can
>remain full size how much grinding is needed on the caliper? Clearly it's
>heat sinking capacity would be reduced but would it's structural/functional
>integrity be compromised as well? If the rotor must be made smaller then by
>how much typically? What about the rear, can it utilize the smaller wheels
>with little (or perhaps no) effort?
the absolute easiest way to deal with this is to do what skod did: slot the
spindles 3/8", and cut down the rotor to 12.25". that's still a pretty damn
big rotor, and should clear a lot of wheels. i'm not sure if the larger cobra
calipers will still interfere, but if they do, you can either grind them or
replace the housings with the corvette PBR caliper housings. i doubt you
would have to do much grinding, if at all. even better, skod's got a couple
of *new* rotors, already cut down to 12.25", that you could pick up for cheap.
i'd have snapped them up, but i need 12.6" rotors.
my calipers have been ground down about 1/8" in a 1 inch swath off the top, on
the outboard side. the stiffening ribs have been ground down to flatten them
more. about 1/8" there, too. there's still plenty of meat left in the
caliper, though i'll be keeping an eye on them (which i should be doing,
anyway). i don't expect to have any problems.
for a while, though, i was running the full 13" rotors with 1/4" wheel
spacers. as i said, it works fine for the street, but i expect to be flogging
the car at the track. if you decide to go this route (and i remember you said
the car would be a street-only car), you can have my wheel spacers. they
aren't even heavy enough to use as doorstops. maybe paperweights.
one issue to consider if you try to give the caliper room by moving the wheel
outboard (whether by increased offset or wheel spacers): scrub radius. that's
a whole different topic, but you'll be increasing the scrub radius, which will
make the car more unstable under heavy braking.
the rears are a non-issue. slap the wheels on and play.
>Yes, I do want have my cake (big rotors, muti-piston calipers, better hubs,
>and killer looking wheels/tires) and eat it too (not mortgage the house, starv
>e
>the child, nor ruin the marriage).
wish it were that easy. i'll be at mini-nats on sunday, if you want to
take a look at my setup.
14 Aug 1995
"Theodore A. Chen"
fordnatics
Brian St. Denis writes:
>The nut I couldn't get loose was the strut top nut. Darn things. Ruined
>a perfectly good 100 degree day to work on the car. After wedging a HUGE
>screwdriver in the slot in the top to hold the shaft, then twisting like
>crazy, the nut wouldn't budge.
>
>I went back through some of the posts about this and someone recommended
>heating the nut and shaft. But, what is the correct tool to use to hold the
>shaft? I know prying a screwdriver isn't the _right_ tool. The manuals
>don't mention anything about it.
heh heh. you're in luck, because i did this *several* times yesterday (i was
experimenting with different setups with bump stops, camber plates, etc).
the easiest way to do this is to use an impact wrench. i don't have one, but
i think i'm going to have to get one.
i suppose you have already tried having a helper hold the screwdriver with a
wrench on the shaft. didn't work for me.
solution: grind some flats into the #$@%! shaft. it took about 2 minutes with
a drill and a carbide bit, and i was able to put a 1/2" combination wrench on
the shaft. koni struts come with flats in the shaft, which is the way it
should be. i don't know what moron decided that a screwdriver slot was the
right way to go.
in my case, the previous owner had used shitloads of loctite, and one of the
nuts wouldn't come off. the combo wrench slipped and rounded off the flats,
so i had to grind 7/16" flats. then i took the strut out and held the nut
over the gas stove. a torch would have been better, but i didn't have one.
after 30 seconds, i started smelling loctite, at which point a couple of
wrenches took the nut off. didn't even smoke the strut mount bushings.
note: try to heat the nut, not the shaft. you'll probably end up heating
both, though.
note 2: i had no problems with grinding flats into the shaft, since the nut
sits well below the area that i ground down.
14 Aug 1995
[email protected]
On Aug 14, Brian St. Denis wrote:
> The nut I couldn't get loose was the strut top nut. Darn things. Ruined
> a perfectly good 100 degree day to work on the car. After wedging a HUGE
> screwdriver in the slot in the top to hold the shaft, then twisting like
> crazy, the nut wouldn't budge.
>
> I went back through some of the posts about this and someone recommended
> heating the nut and shaft. But, what is the correct tool to use to hold the
> shaft? I know prying a screwdriver isn't the _right_ tool. The manuals
> don't mention anything about it.
That's because you _don't_ hold the shaft, if you use the right tools. The
shaft is pretty massive, and it's nicely locked in place by friction. So use
an impact wrench, and the nut will buzz right off-with the shaft held in place
only by friction and its own inertia.
What, you say you don't have an impact wrench? Then make one- tapping on the
opposite end of an appropriately sized box-end wrench works just fine too. The
point is that _impact_ lets you buzz the sucker off, whereas no amount of
static torqueing with a screwdriver or what-have-you is likely to succeed.
If you're a real masochist, then several comanies make an outsized
screwdriver-looking 3/8" drive socket that is supposed to fit those slots. But
frankly, I'd recommend Liquid Wrench, gentle heating to about 350degF, and a
few taps on your favorite sacrificial box-end wrench... Or a drive to your
local gagrage for 15 seconds of buzzing with the impact wrench, just to break
them loose.
17 Aug 1995
[email protected]
On Aug 16, Brian St. Denis wrote:
> Question1. When tightening the strut top nut on the Tokico struts,
> the nut got real tight without the shaft moving. I then used a wrench
> to hold the flat spots of the shaft and tried to tighten more but couldn't.
> Does the shaft free to rotate in a Tokico Illumina strut? Should we
> be careful not to torque against the shaft?
That paragraph doesn't really parse- but I'll take a stab anyway. It sounds as
if the strut shaft isn't firmly locked in place in the upper bushing in your
camber plates, and the strut shaft is free to rotate with respect to that
bushing. This is Bad. The strut shaft should be firmly locked to that bushing,
and should not be able to fret around inside it. I don't know whose camber
plates you're running, but you might need to obtain or fabricate a spacer. I
vaguely remember, back when the earth was still cooling, making a set of
spacers from the inner sleeve of one of the original OEM strut mount bushings.
But I can't even remeber now which camber plates, or which struts, I needed to
do it for... The nut needs to lock down the strut shaft to the camber plate.
That's the important part. Do whatever you need to to make that happen.
If that's not what you meant, then- the shaft in a strut will always be free
to rotate with respect to the strut body and the spindle. Otherwise, it'd be a
right bitch to steer! (;-)
> Question2. The M-2300-C springs (650# front) lower the car a lot. It
> looks much more lowered than I thought and I like the looks. But,
> will 245x45 tires fit in there? What are my options?
They'll fit, although they may require a certain amount of clearancing
(probably trivial). I have 255s in mine, front and rear, and only minor fender
lip rolling was needed. Stick 'em in, and see what happens. That`s what
everyone else has to do...
17 Aug 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Aug 17, Teddy Chen wrote:
> ok, great. i have a softball bat to stick in there. the only trouble
> is that the bat doesn't come close to touching both the tire and the
> fender unless i tilt it at a fairly steep angle. for the people who
> have rolled their fenders, how did you do it?
Technique 1: Get 4 or 5 of your friends in varying sizes to help you out. Open
the hatch, and have one or two hop in, until the suspension is loaded enough
to allow the bat to work at about a 45deg angle (pressing equally "up" and
"out"). Get the other friends to push the car slowly along, as you feed the
bat between the tire and the lip at the rear of the wheelwell. The tire's
rotation will carry the bat forward, rolling it along the lip. How much
pressure you put on the metal is controlled by how hard you lift up on the
free end of the bat, and the angle of the rolling action is controlled by the
ride height (so it's useful to keep one or two smallish folks around to trim
with- "shim friends", I think they're called). Make several smooth, gentle
passes, intead of one big "reef the heck out of it" pass, and you can do it
without even cracking the paint. Reefing on it will wrinkle the bejeezus out
of the quarterpanel, and all your friends will laugh at you.
Technique 2: Pop the rear springs out, and shim the axle-bumpstop gap with a
block of wood to get the same working clearance. This is more useful to those
of us with limited numbers of friends. Luckily, in this case, there are fewer
witnesses to do the laughing part.
All levity aside, there are times that it is _extremely_ useful to have setup
blocks like this that can support the car at some ride height of interest with
the springs out. The more setup work you do, the more oddly-shaped little bits
of wood you'll end up with, laying around the shop...
18 Aug 1995
[email protected] (Jim Dingell at Performance Parts, Inc.)
fordnatics
The "Special Service" fan clutch was used from 1985-1993 on Special Service
Mustangs and 1993 Cobra "R" models only. There are two fan clutches used on
regular 1985-1993 Mustangs 5.0Ls, basically the "with a/c" and the "without
a/c." These two regular clutches do not offer the same calibration as the
unique Special Service part. One note... Special Service Mustangs with 5
speeds got the unique fan clutch. Those equipped with the AOD did not. They
received the regular 5.0L's "with a/c" fan clutch. This info is from Ford's
"How-To" booklets for these particular models and my experience with the Cobra
"R" models and Special Service Mustangs. JD, PPI
At 11:15 PM 8/17/95 -0700, Robert Allen wrote:
> I'm looking for information on the fan clutches
> used on the 85 1/2 5.0 engines. I've heard of
> a "Police" version which was supposedly also
> put on the Cobra R model of 1993, which is
> slightly more efficient than the stock clutch.
>
> My question is: the 85 1/2 was the peak of
> horsepower since '79 (and not surpassed until
> '86); did it already have this Police unit?
23 Aug 1995
[email protected]
FORDNATICS
On Aug 22, Darius Rudis wrote:
> I installed the HP Motorsports Megabite (not juniors) rear lower control arms.
> Since these are adjustable what is the correct pinion angle?
> I am running the 85% antisquat setting and not the 135%. I barely drive this
> car on the street and am setting it up for an event at Waterford Hills race
> course Labor day weekend.
There's no way to tell, since there's no way to tell what you are running for
your upper arms and/or bushings. With a Torque Arm, you simply set up the
centerline of the pinion shaft and the centerline of the tranny tailshaft to
be absolutely parallel at static loaded ride height, and you're done.
But with your 4-link, which may or may not have compliant bushings, you have a
bigger problem. You want the pinion and tailshaft centerlines to end up
parallel at loaded static ride height *and WOT in 3rd or 4th gear*. The torque
reaction in the axle, as well as the car's reaction to acceleration, will
deflect the bushings and allow the pinion to "climb" well above the static
angle. So you need to build in some static pinion-low included angle there to
compensate for this climb effect. But not knowing the bushings or the setup,
there's frankly no way to know. Shoot, even if we _did_ know that, there
probably still wouldn't be any way to know... You'd need to find someone who
had run that exact setup, and had tuned it in.
I think you'll need to do it empirically. Set it up with the pinion nose
perhaps 2deg low to start out. If the car shakes like a bastard at WOT and 3rd
or 4th gear, change it. Perhaps add another half degree. Lather, rinse,
repeat, until you find the null- and then make a note of it. Driveline
vibration from driveshaft angle isn't exactly a subtle thing...
23 Aug 1995
Brian Kelley
Jim Kaiser writes:
>Well, my trac-lock clutches bit the dust and there is at least one
>rear axle bearing that makes noise (till I step on the brakes). I have
>visions of putting real brakes on the car, but now is not the time.
I feel you're attacking this problem in the wrong way. I'd say you have two
choices: you can either beef the differential (Detroit Locker) or get a better
rear suspension.
A torque arm or a 3 link will dramatically reduce the unloading of the inside
rear tire during corner exits by allowing the axle housing to stay parallel to
the track. Many folks who make the switch find that their old "worn-out"
traction-lok is actually acceptable and no longer in need of an immediate
rebuild.
I've tried most of the combinations in autocross and open track events -4 link
w/t-lok (with and w/o polyurethane bushings), 4 link w/Detroit locker and 3
link w/Detroit locker. With a Detroit locker and the factory 4 link you can
actually put quite a bit of power down while exiting corners (since the oh-so
heavily weighted outside tire _will_ be driven).
> 0) rebuild the 28 spline trac-lock with additional clutches
> and hope the axles are ok ~$300 p&l
That solution is a money pit in a track car, especially if you have a strong
engine.
> 1) put in a 31 spline trac-lock with additional clutches
> 1a 1. but an auburn. ~$650 p&l
See #0.
> 2) 1. with 9" ford axle ends and drum brakes off a big
> pickup ~$750 p&l
See #0 unless you put a locker in it. Then be prepared to break some axles.
Lockers are about $300 new.
> 3) a detroit locker in the 8.8, which I understand
> will be available in a couple of weeks, and
> possibly the big axle ends and new axles.
> ~add about $275 to trac-lock options
This is a possibility. I know a few guys running the "Lock-rite" rears with
good success. I'd be more than a little worried about my axles. You might be
okay with good ones.
> 4) a full 9" rear end ~$1,200-$1,300?? I install
I had one. Summers axles were $520 pair, some others were cheaper. I decided
to get rid of mine because it was a small bearing housing (great for drag
racing, but not for severe cornering loads) and they'd always be haunting me.
I ended up going to a floating axle 9" which is extremely bullet-proof. I run
large slicks which are very hard on conventional rear ends. If you can weld
your own brackets the cost of a floater setup isn't bad (and good axles are
cheap and they last).
>I will of course also need new wheels for options 2-4 since I now have
>4 lug 15" wheels.
You can get custom axles in a 4 bolt pattern.
>Has anyone ever run a locker on a road race car?
In TRANS-AM, you can now only run either a spool or a Detroit Locker.
I run a DL and I think it is great. A friend/competitor tried a Gold Track,
but didn't like the way it handled when entering a tight corner (the car
wanted to rotate too much and tended to spin.. He said it felt like the inside
tire was going backwards). He went back to his DL. If you've got a lot of
power and you're running lots of tire, nothing will put power down like a DL
or a spool. The DL is also bulletproof and requires essentially no
maintenance.
DL's can be hard on axles, particular in autocross applications with large
slicks and lots of power. At you mentioned, the locking action is not gentle.
This isn't a problem when you're driving hard because you're either coasting,
feathering or applying power. On a track you don't generally notice or hear
it. It just "works".
You've got some tough decisions to make. I know the torque arm/panhard setup
isn't cheap. Since you're running open track events, I suggest you go that
route, and buy a shop manual and replace the clutch packs yourself.
23 Aug 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Aug 22, James W. Kaiser wrote:
> Well, my trac-lock clutches bit the dust and there is at least one
> rear axle bearing that makes noise (till I step on the brakes).
*Not* good, given that the outer bearings run directly on the axle
shaft itself.
> 0) rebuild the 28 spline trac-lock with additional clutches
> and hope the axles are ok ~$300 p&l
You could do this, but axles are _cheap_, and the effects of a failure are not
enjoyable. Stacy Yem rolled and totalled his '87 Mustang at Sears Point after
experiencing a fatigue failure in one rear axle shaft. At some point the
bearing had been damaged (by foreign material getting into the rollers), and
the resulting wear groove that was cut in the axle shaft, right at the point
of the greatest fully-reversed bending stress, gave him a a beautiful textbook
fatigue/brittle failure. These C-clip axles are very highly loaded in
roadracing use, and should be treated as maintenance items. Once there is
surface damage in the bearing race area, the question is no longer "if" a
failure will happen, but rather "when". And nothing good has ever been
reported about the departure of a wheel at speed.
If there's any damage in the race area (grooving or the like), or if a
Magnaflux check comes back positive, then take a ball pein hammer and *beat
the hell* out of the race area before you throw the axle away. That'll keep
some budget racer from installing your incipient failures, rescued from the
dumpster, because they think that they look "good enough"...
> 1) put in a 31 spline trac-lock with additional clutches
> and new axles ~$600 p&l
New axles may well be a big win. If you do go 31 spline, that doesn't
prevent you from doing the 9" big-bearing conversion at a later time. You can
get those axles from Mark Williams set up either way.
> 1a 1. but an auburn. ~$650 p&l
I'm not a big fan of Auburns, but others have made them work...
> 2) 1. with 9" ford axle ends and drum brakes off a big
> pickup ~$750 p&l
Or, alternatively, with any of two dozen different disk setups that bolt right
onto the 9" big-bearing ends. I'd suggest you contact Engineered Components,
Inc., at 203 872 7046. They have several turnkey off-the-shelf kits of parts
to put Corvette disks on the rear of cars with Ford 9" axles (primarily for
street rods). Or you could go the component route and simply pick up brackets,
calipers, and disks from any of the various circle-track sources (Coleman,
Lefthander Chassis, Afco, Stock Car Products). I can help you out with that,
if you like.
The good news about the 9" axle ends is that there are a _staggering_ number
of inexpensive disk brake setups that will work for them, since they are
required by the NASCAR rules, and are therefore used in damned near every
circle-track car out there. I wouldn't spend a dime on truck drums, if you're
going for disks "eventually". Get 'em *now*.
> 3) a detroit locker in the 8.8, which I understand
> will be available in a couple of weeks, and
> possibly the big axle ends and new axles.
> ~add about $275 to trac-lock options
Whatever. There's a Gold-Trak coming out also, which is a Torsen-like torque-
biasing diff, and it'll cost the same as the 9" Gold-Trak. If you need it, you
need it- but I think that you should be able to do just fine with a decently
set up Traction Lok and a sensitive throttle foot, and save yourself the $675
to put into the brakes. Just my opinion...
> 4) a full 9" rear end ~$1,200-$1,300?? I install
Talk to Borys Senyk, who is in the process of doing this very thing even as we
speak, and hopes to have it in his car for Mini Nats.
> Has anyone ever run a locker on a road race car? The only experience I
> have had with a locker was in an old tow truck. When ever you got on
> the gas while turning at all the unit locked and the truck jerked like
> mad; seems like not a good thing for a road car. I have also heard
> that the auburns don't hold up to cornering abuse - the cones slip
> which trashes the unit.
Lockers are a bit harsh, but several members here have roadraced on them and
swear by them. I've driven a couple of cars ('65-66 Mustangs) with spools in
roadracing use, and they are a *serious* grin to drive-at least, if you like a
viciously oversteering car that pushes a bit on entry. Traction-Loks and
Auburns are both maintenance-sinks, frankly. But my nod would go to the
Traction-Lok, since it's cheaper to keep healthy. Of all the options, the
Gold-Trak seems the best to me (in the case of writing checks out of somebody
else's checkbook). Theoretically, anyway, it locks up nicely on the power,
free-runs nicely to control initial understeer, and transitions between the
two pretty smoothly. However, I don't know what maintenance and life
expectancy are, and the silly things cost a fortune...
If it were *me*, writing checks out of my own checkbook, I'd freshen up the
existing T-lok, put in fresh axles (which I did every 2 seasons anyway with
the old C-clip axles, as a maintenance item), and spend my money elsewhere.
Like on the brakes, or safety gear.
Please do get that axle bearing seen to before Mini Nats, if you're coming up
for it. Experiencing an axle failure in Turn 8A at Sears is not an experience
I would recommend to *anyone*- and if it's bitching at you, it's probably
profoundly dead.
28 Aug 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Aug 27, Ray Schumin ([email protected]) wrote:
> I have a '91 GT convertible and access to a small Sears floor jack. Where are
> the best/right locations to place the jack to lift two wheels at one time?
> The jack is too short to reach under the pumpkin or the engine crossmember
> to lift from the ends, so I am limited to the sides. I also have 2 medium
> duty jackstands. Thanks for the h*lp.
Hmm. Well, if you have good SFCs, consider jacking from them. Otherwise, sell
your jack and buy one that is long enough to reach the crossmember and axle
center section. I do not recommend jacking from the side of the car on the
stock sheet metal, either with the factory emergency jack or with an
aftermarket jack. Even if you carve a block of wood to spread the stresses out
over the rocker seam, you're very likely to distort the sheetmetal in the
rocker boxes. The convertible "stiffening kit" won't help very much, even
though it looks impressive. I've seen covertibles with many sheared rivets in
the stiffening kit from trying this.
I have the Global West SFCs and the supplement kit, so my rocker seam is
reinforced with some 1" x .095 wall square tubing. I can just throw the jack
under that, and lift one side of the car with no problem. But if you try that
with an unmodified tub, you'll probably end up with some pretty tweaked sheet
metal...
If you are still determined to do it with the little jack, you can jack under
the rear control arm bracket on the axle to raise the rear, slide a stand
under the axle tube, and then jack under the front control arm to raise the
front up, and slide the jack stand under the crossmember. But I'd still highly
recommend getting a properly sized jack, or reinforcing the rocker seam.
08 Sep 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Sep 1, Dave Lampert (DRL1%OCC%[email protected]) wrote:
> The 89 owner doesn't want the expense of a panhard rod/torque arm
> setup, but is interested in improving the four link set up. I haven't
> seen anything on this in a long while, i.e. loosening the stock four
> link set up with heim joint arms. police arms? etc. His is lowered
> with sfc's and braces. His useage will continue to be street. Anyone
> (SKOD, CHUCKO, Brian,) that will comment enough so that I'll be able
> to drop some useful information this weekend?
Too late- I was already up at Sears Point on Friday. But just for the
Fordnatics audience, I'll kick in anyway. If the subject is high-performance
handling, IMNSHO the current correct answer is to bite the bullet and just go
with the Griggs Torque Arm. I don't think that there's anything available that
can rival it that comes that close to being a one-stop-shopping, bolt-on
approach. The Fox 4-link is basically a marginal suspension, and band-aiding
it simply doesn't have much of a chance, let alone providing a good the bang
for the buck ratio.
Probably the best of the streetable band-aids is the the Police/Taxi arm set,
or going with urethane bushings in all but the axle center section locations.
If he wants to feel that he's doing something sophisticated, some people have
also reported adequate results with the GW Trak-Link, at least for the street.
I personally can't recommend it for track use, as in my opinion it doesn't
appear to be durable enough for stresses of that magnitude. But it can help
deal with lateral location to an extent, provide some anti-squat, and address
some of the other 4-link foibles in street use. And bolting it on will make
him think that he actually made major improvements and didn't spend much
money, which is probably more important to him than actually fixing the
problem (which ain't cheap to do). The basic, underlying Fox 4-link problems
(bind in roll, and lateral compliance) will still remain, though.
If you're going to put metal-on-metal bushings in there, then just take the
dive and do the Torque Arm setup. IMHO, heims in the Fox 4-link will cause
nothing but heartache, conduct a lot of noise into the tub, and eventually
wreck the pickup points, at least in hard cornering use.
> A second (long) question: My bone stock 86 GT with four lugs (and
> small discs) is looking at a chassis improvement program in 96. What
> would the gentlefolks of this list recommend as the optimum cost
> effective combination (maybe NOT ultimate) of front/rear discs,
> upgraded axles (and bearings), c-clip elim, etc. I.E., do the upgrades
> once and only once, but cost effectively.
If it's a street car, then just go with the M-2300-K kit. If it'll be a track
car, then go with the M-2300-K kit and get the 9" Ford big-bearing upgrade
from Mark Williams, and then sell the 5-lug C-clip axles to someone on this
list. You won't be stuck with them for long. The only part that you're likely
to make redundant with the 9" BB upgrade is the axle shafts, and they are
exactly the axles that are used on all the SN95s. You can resell those easily.
You will have to do a certain amount of rework on the rear caliper mount
plates to adapt to the 9" BB ends. You'll only have to do that once.
For a street car, or an occasional autox stormer, you arguably don't need the
big-bearing conversion. But if you're going to be going to track events
several times a year, running in a fast group with big sticky tires, and
generally _flogging_ the car, you'll need something stouter. You can do it in
phases, if you like.
12 Sep 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Sep 11, Teddy Chen wrote:
> however, the tail was getting light and wanted to dance
> when i braked heavily, particularly for turn 10. it's unnerving because
> there isn't much braking room, and you've got to slow down or you'll
> hit the tire wall. this feels a bit different from the instability
> caused by the rubber bushings in the front control arms and k-member flex.
> the front seemed to track fine - it was the tail that was moving around.
>
> i thought it was improper brake biasing, but karl brandt thought it was
> the 4-link rear suspension making its presence known. i'm trying to
> figure out which it is.
The threshold braking behavior of the 4-link is pretty amusing. Right at the
threshold, you'll induce all manner of axle hop unless you have a high enough
rear spring rate, and adjustable jounce damping to match (and probably even
then). With the fixed jounce damping that you tend to get on most of our
budget rear shocks, you may very well have to stop short of the true threshold
back there in order to preserve rear stability.
If you think you have problems, spare a kind thought for the SN95 guys. With
the PBR front brakes, good pads, and sticky tires at optimum working
temperature, the SN95 platform can lift its entire rear axle off the road for
some pretty significant periods of time during those hops. The subtly
different rear geometries, due to the relocated chassis pickup points for the
arms, have resulted in the rear axle jacking effect being even *more*
pronounced for those cars than for the Fox cars. And given that the Fox cars
have serious problems with that already, that is really saying something.
> >For wet days, you can run the brake bias significantly more rear-heavy
> >than in the dry. I'll grant 10 "Pedantic Bastard" (reg'd-TM) bonus
> >brownie points to any new trackie who understands why *that* somewhat
> >counterintuitive relationship exists.
>
> hmm. my guess would be that on wet days, friction is reduced, which
> reduces the braking force available to slow the car. less weight
> transfer occurs, and therefore you can run more rear bias on the brakes.
> do i get my PB points?
Yup! Reduced weight transfer, caused by the lower *overall* decelerative
capability on the slick surface, is the right answer. I was pleasantly
surprised by the number of folks who had a good grasp of the dynamics of
braking there. Each of you who got it right can consider your Karmic Balances
to have been updated in that great Ledger in the Sky. Those points may come in
useful some day as the car is sliding towards a tirewall. After all, cashing
in PB points is supposed to be *much* more effective than merely saying "Shit-
this isn't supposed to happen!"...
21 Sep 1995
"Kapperman, Neil"
FORDNATICS
Conversion of a 4 cylinder Mustang to a V8 is easier than what everyone thinks
(See below snip from Darius Rudis, obviously he is not speaking from
experience). I am not trying to flame Darius, and I hope he does not take it
that way. I have done this conversion as one of my present projects. It was
just as easy as pulling the 2.3l and rebuilding it, and re-installing it. By
this I mean that you DO NOT have to change motor mounts.
Motor Mounts:
The 4 cylinder mounts will work. But since your there you should replace with
NEW anyway, you do notice a difference from an old mount to a new one.
Radiator:
If you have air-conditioned stang, your in luck, the radiator works just fine,
I have not yet over-heated and I have been using the same 4 cylinder radiator
for the last 5,000 miles (Summer only). It has been on the road for about 2
years.
Transmission:
When I found my 302, it came with a transmission (C-4), and with every 302 I
have purchased in the past to rebuild, has come with a transmission. True you
should rebuild the transmission too, but think of it like this, you would
eventually have to rebuild the transmission behind the 4 cylinder, because
after all horsepower is the name of the game. Adding more to the 4 cylinder,
would mean the need to upgrade the original trans anyway!! So spend the extra
money and rebuild the trans now instead of later. If you plan for it now it
won't be so bad. After all chances are if you can find a 302 that you can
rebuild or have rebuilt that is still in good condition, the trans attached to
it may very well be in as good of condition.
7.5" Rear-end:
The 7.5" rear-end was a factory axle for the 302 powered Mustang until 85 or
86 anyway. So this is mis-conception that an 8.8 is REQUIRED for this
conversion. It is NOT required for this conversion, but is a worthy UPGRADE
option, and seriously think about it later on. Again, this was one of my
initial worries also, but it has held up so far (knock on wood)
Front Springs:
The springs and related items (sway bar, sway bar links) are about the only
things that I would say are a must do, of the list that Darius mentions. But
the don't need to be done immediately. To help soften the financial blow, I
waited a while. The car drove fine, the ride was excellent for a highway
vehicle, but cornering sucks. Using the stock springs lowers the vehicle
about 1" to 2". If I only drove on the highway and on STRAIGHT roads, I would
love to keep the 4 cylinder springs. The ride was smooth as silk!!!
Back Springs:
The back springs should be fine, in fact it should help you launches if you
keep these you should have better weight transfer compared to using a stiffer
spring. This is just my theory, so it is probably wrong!!
Shocks:
A normal Upgrade whether you drive a 4 or a V8. Enough said.
Brakes:
Just think of the added front end weight (Approx. 150 lb.) as an extra
passenger. I have not had any problems, the stock brakes definitely need
upgraded anyway, but she goes 0-60 faster than 60-0!!!
Overall: I would suggest to do it, if not just for the Hell of it!!!
As I said before, I did not write this message to flame ANYONE, so if any one
has any questions on this conversion, I have done this before, and I am
willing to discuss this with anybody if it will h@lp. I have also been known
to be wrong!!! So if you feel anything I have said to be wrong, please e-mail
me!!! I can't correct myself, if I do not know I need to correct myself!!!
25 Sep 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Sep 22, Michael Ruff wrote:
> I want to get the best quality plates out there. I've heard negative things
> about the Saleen set, nothing about Steeda's, and not much about the GW kit.
> People seem to like the CCM plates, but the caster isn't adjustable (which
> is something I want). The guy at MM claimed that theirs were the best on
> the market (of course) and said that the Hotchkiss set was junk (again, of
> course, what else would he say?).
I've used the CCM plates with great success for a number of years. The GW
plates are also highly regarded. I'm not a big fan of the MM/Hotchkis plates
that attempt to secure the caster adjustment with two very long cap screws
loaded in pure bending right through the thread root- I think that that's a
guaranteed failure in the making (especially if you drive at places that have
huge shock loadings in store, like launching off the Corkscrew at Laguna).
I'd definitely go for either the CCM plates or the GW plates. The CCM plate
offers the advantage of a nice bumpstop and preservation of a little extra
suspension travel. Of course, if you update to the SN95 spindles (via the M-
2300-K brake kit or by doing it the hard way), you no longer need that
ability, as the extra travel comes for free with the spindle. So the two plate
designs are roughly equivalent to my way of thinking.
Others have noted that the caster adjustment is really somewhat redundant, and
I tend to agree. I've relocated my K-frame to get the maximum possible caster,
so the CCM plates are fine for my application. With a stock K-frame in the
stock location, the round clearance hole in the tower is what sets the limit
of caster and camber you'll be able to run. I've carved almost 1/2" off the
inside rear area of that hole on my car to be able to run the settings I want.
If you intend to go radical on your front setup, you'll need to move some
metal in there regardless of which plate you run.
25 Sep 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Sep 22, James W. Kaiser wrote:
> After easing it back to the pits it turned out the
> "backfire" was the right front rubber bushing in the upper rear control
> arm violently loosening itself from the shell. I now have the most
> annoying squeak and clank back there as the bushing sits huddled to the
> left of the arm.
I'd recommend replacing the failed bushing with urethane, or outright
replacement of the upper arms with the police/taxi arms you could get from Jim
Dingell. That's the first failure of a _front_ upper bushing I've heard of in
a long time!
Even if you will "eventually" go to a torque arm, you need to fix this _now_.
Once the rubber debonds, the hardened steel bushing shell can run in contact
with the mild steel chassis torque box. This will result in the noisy
operation you note. It will also result, within just a very few hours, in a
nice circle cut out of the torque box by the bushing shell, cookie-cutter
style.
Upper arm bushing failure is a very common problem with hard-driven Mustangs
that have the stock 4-link still in use. Normally, the rear upper bushings (in
the axle center section ears) are the first to go-and you should give them a
good look-see while you're in there, looking for signs of debonding. You need
to watch those bushings like a hawk if you do extensive track driving with
sticky race rubber, or upper arm failure is a very real possibility. And it'd
be no fun to have that happen in Turn 6, for example.
03 Oct 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Oct 3, Michael Ruff wrote:
> Finally got my order today from Classic Corral. The first thing I noticed
> was that there was NO mounting hardware in the box with the Maier STB; just
> the brace itself and the backing plate that goes behind the firewall. Is
> this right? Are we expected to come up with our own hardware?
Yes. Somehow, I suspect that acquiring the 5 required 5/16"x1" UNF bolts,
washers, and elastic stop nuts from Orchard Supply Hardware won't pose much of
a problem. I recall that it put me out about $4... The strut tower itself
should used the existing hardware.
> Second, I also was wondering about the GW subframes connectors.
They are asymmetrical. The torque boxes aren't identical, side to side, and
there is a great deal of tolerance stackup that these parts have to work with.
Assuming that you got a right and a left (which it sounds like you did), they
should work fine.
> Also on the GWs, there are four auxiliary pieces of metal; two angle brackets
> which apparently get welded in near the rear of the front subframes, and two
> somewhat random-looking flat plates of different sizes. I don't recall the
> exact shapes (I'll try to recreate the shapes in ASCII if somebody needs to
> see them), but what I'm wondering is, are they supposed to be different sizes
> and shapes?
Yes, to acommodate the asymmetry of the torque boxes. The trapezoidal gussets
get tacked and hammerformed into place between the rear butt plates, the SFC
tubes themselves, and the torque boxes, and help tie the SFC into the torque
box. The angle gussets pick up the "tail" of the front subframe stamping, and
due to the production tolerances (and the inevitable distortion of the tub in
hard use), they need to be installed after the main SFC is in place to keep
from gapping or holding the SFC too far down away from the belly.
The right way to do it is to support the tub squared up to the floor and
itself on jackstands. support the SFC snug up against the belly, tap it as far
aft as possible to insure maximum contact with the torque box, and then weld
in the rear butt plate first- then work forward on the front point, then put
in the added gusset and angle last. But most shops that have installed a few
sets of these will be able to do that in their sleep...
> Are the rear mounting points different between the driver's and
> passenger sides of the car?
Yup. Mock it up, and take a look. They're not _massively_ different, but it's
definitely there- and one of those gussets will fill the SFC/torque box gap
better on one side than the other.
> Finally, I ordered a pair of magnetic oil pan drain plugs, and I'm not sure
> they sent me the right size. For a 93 LX 5.0 hatchback, is 14mm x 1.5 the
> correct plug for this application (and I know Ford has never been wonderfully
> consistent in this department).
That should be right- they started shipping the metric plugs in '92, I think.
07 Oct 1995
Tom Stangler
fordnatics
it is/was the "BUBBLE FROM HELL" in my brake lines giving me grief. I ended up
"burping" the factory prop valve (because you had to open it to remove the
spring, etc and put the solid piece on the end) and saw one bubble "phftttttt"
its way out from the threads. but I suspect more in there. soooooo,,,not to
have this problem ever again, the solution: get rid of the gutted factory prop
valve. I'll loose the brake warning light, and the sliding needle that
activates when you loose one system. but i can live with that. Here is what I
found.....
factory prop valve from a 86 (note: might not be applicable for your car)
3/8x24 IF 7/16x20 IF
___ ____
___| |_________________| |
_| |______
7/16x20 IF |_| fronts rears |-
|___ ___________ | | big nut
|___| | _____________|-
|___|
3/8x24 IF
3/8x24 IF
so it was a matter of finding the appropriate fittings to 1) barrel a 7/16 to
a 3/8 for the rears, and 2) tee a 7/16 to two 3/8's for the fronts. 15$ and a
couple of adapters later, I have the parts. It wasn't an easy search, but it
was do-able. Had I known what I know now, I would have put my adjustable prop
valve inplace of the barrel. and might still do that since I will have to
break the lines open again.
this is not a mod that everyone might want to consider. you do loose two
safety functions. but for those who regulary play with their brakes, it might
help solve the big bubble.
07 Oct 1995 13:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
Dan Malek
Subject: Re: MAF for 94 F150
Tom Stangler
>page 66 of the 94 FMS catalogue.
> all the wiring harnesses you can ever need and want, plus the
>computer, maf, injectors.
>actually everything you need to install a 5.0 in a street rod.
But, you can't put it into a '94 F150 because it uses the E4OD, and the EEC-IV
provides shift inputs to, and requires data output from, the E4OD. If you
look more carefully, the truck Mass Air conversions are only for AOD, not E4OD
(or even manual transmissions).
There was a Super Ford magazine article about someone that did it. Banks
Engineering provides electronic shift kits for the E4OD. I don't remember who
did the conversion, but they took one of those units, a Mass Air 5.0 HO
processor, and wired the 5.0 HO in parallel with the stock processor. The
stock processor provided shift information (modified by the Banks unit), and
the 5.0 HO processor provided the Mass Air conversion. But, this was also on a
5.8L engine, which had the same firing order as the 5.0 HO (but different from
the 5.0 non-HO).
To me, it was a real hack. I called the company that did the conversion, and
of course it was still "..in the prototype stages. But we know the kit will
cost $800 (or something ridiculous) when it is finished." They promised to
call back when they have something for sale, but of course never did. I have
not seen anything advertised, either.
I vaguely recall from reading shop manuals that there may have existed a Mass
Air 5.0 with E4OD as a California version of the E-150 van, but that does not
help much.
09 Oct 1995
[email protected]
FORDNATICS
On Oct 8, Eugene Y C Chu wrote:
> I have a question for those of you who have replaced the stock rear
> suspension with something exotic like torque arms and panhard rods:
> How does your car perform in the rain? Let's assume further that
> you also replaced the lower control arm with something that has better
> bushings and rear pickup points, and that your positraction is working.
Much, much better. The car behaves a great deal better at the rear in the wet
when you don't have to worry about storing energy in the bushings to be
released when the grip varies.
If it improves the behavior on the limit in the dry, it probably won't be too
far wrong in the wet (compared to stock, anyway!). The only change I'd make in
my setup for the wet are tire pressures and dropping the rear antiroll bar to
maximize mechanical grip at the rear...
09 Oct 1995
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
fordnatics
-> suspension with something exotic like torque arms and panhard rods:
-> How does your car perform in the rain? Let's assume further that
Dunno about Mustangs, but my Capri had leaf springs and a pair of torque arms
on top, sorta like a mutant four bar. I added a Panhard rod to locate the
roll center, 6" shackles in back and 2" lowering blocks (net height change,
zero) to reduce roll steer, and lengthened the torque arms. It now handles
wonderfully in the rain.
Of all the modifications I made to the car - which included changing the lower
control arm pickup points on the crossmember as well as everything else - two
mods stood out. The first was the front bar, which was 5x stiffer than the
original. On an open wheeler or real race car that's neutral to begin with,
more front bar will cause understeer. On a production box that has a ton of
roll understeer to start with, a huge front bar will reduce understeer
substantially. The second mod was the Panhard rod. Such a trivial thing, and
cheap too. The Panhard's greatest effect isn't at the back, but at the front.
Steering became much more linear and precise, particularly on winding roads.
The rear end moves around quite a bit; locating it solidly pays off.
13 Oct 1995
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
fordnatics
Dale Maurice and I were some race parts for our cars yesterday.
He had recently bought the bump steer adjustable tie rod ends from Bear
Racing. In the past on my other race cars I had a similiar setup on my race
cars. My cars had typical Stock Car Racing type spindles and the pin with the
spacers and a rod end for a tie rod end. The pin with the taper is the trick
part in this setup. I thought the taper size/shape for the Mustang would be
different from the ones I used on my Stock Car Products spindles. I bought a
pair of the pins from wall of my local Stock Car parts supplier and after
comparing with Dale's Baer parts they are the same pin exactly, down to the
nuts and spacers that come with the pin. I think these things are made by AFCO
(I got them in generic plastic bags with no manufacturer name on them). I paid
$18 for them which is high (I have seen them for $10-12). In addition you will
need 2 5/8" rod ends, a pair of coupler tubes (Dale has some extras already
made up) and 2 jam nuts to duplicate the Baer setup.
13 Oct 1995
Brian Kelley
fordnatics
Mike Herrmann writes (regarding his '96 Cobra test drive):
>Seat of the pants feel of the new car
>says that it will easily crush the 5.0 in my 92 LX in the Stoplight 500.
That probably isn't saying much :-) But you're very right - it is much faster
than a stock 5.0. It is unfortunate that the dealers won't let you thrash any
of those '95 Cobra R's, and that the 351W never made it into the regular
Mustang. The production 351W combo is quite interesting. Lots of low rpm
torque, mostly done by 4500 rpm. But it has some serious grunt.
>The brakes, of course, are so awesome. If you have not driven a cobra
>before, you must just to hit the brakes hard. The springs are way
>too soft on the car so it nose dives big time, but it stops hard.
>ABS stops from 40 MPH were pretty decent...a little tire lockup, but
>not too bad. It would be nice to be able to disable it for the track,
>as it seems to interfere too early. The brakes get a 10+.
Disable it for the track? I don't think so. At least the Corvette hotshoes I
know _love_ their ABS on the track and say they couldn't go as fast without
it. Getting some tire noise with the ABS is expected with street rubber. The
tires must slip to provide optimal grip, even with ABS.
The brake development engineer who does all of the Mustang brakes is a friend
of mine. He does extensive and legnthy brake testing regularly and gets paid
for it. He reports that even in a straight line on a clean surface, he has a
great deal of difficulty equaling the stopping distance provided by that ABS
(stopping distance being very accurately measured with a 5th wheel). He says
he can "come within a couple feet".
After very recently adding ABS to my '83 Capri track car, I have to agree with
the 'vette drivers. I thought the ABS was merely okay on the street on the
way to the event (I did not complete the installation until the night before
the event). I switched it on for the first session and never turned it off.
It was a blast. You can have an awful lot of fun in a 2700 lbs car on 13"
slicks. Adding ABS to that combo is just icing on the cake..
The amount of slip the current calibration allows is not optimal for the bias
slicks that I run. I have yet to fully determine just how much that hurts the
performance.
15 Oct 1995
Paul Rimmer
>Well, the Maier STB install is turning into a gold-plated b*tch. The initial
>disassembly steps went fine, except for this horrible grating noise from the
>strut towers while raising the front of the car with the stock plates off
>the car (probably the strut mount bolt threads grating against the holes).
>
>HOWEVER, as many people have experienced, the fit is off. WAY off, IMO.
>It seems to fit okay (not great, just okay) at the firewall and on the
>passenger side, but the holes on the driver's side are nearly 1/2" too far
>inboard (the whole strut tower needs to be "persuaded" inward). I really
>don't know if I can manage moving it that far, even with a crowbar, and I'm
>not sure I'd want to if I could. I'm tempted to find a fabricator and
>simply have one custom made that would fit better, and sending this one
>back. The brace seems to almost be interfering with the distributor, too,
>coming down way too close to the plug wire boots.
>
>Can anyone offer any h*lp? Email replies would be better for me, since
>I'm on the digest form of the l*st. Thanks.
Hey, Deja Vu,
You are experiencing EXACTLY what myself and other list members have seen with
this type of STB. Actually I'm pretty sure mine was off by more than 1/2 an
inch. It scared the shit out of me too. I was sure that if I forced it on,
it would really screw up the cars handling. Here's what I would recommend you
do, it worked for me:
Get one side on. I did the drivers side first. Then move over to the other
side. Start freaking out 'cause the holes are way off. Remain calm. Get a
friend (SO's work fine) to help. You don't need a gorilla, anyone can help.
Using a floor jack, slowly have them raise the car. This causes the strut
bolts to protrude through the holes. While you are telling them to jack, you
are also reefing on the STB with your favourite, life time warranty, big,
honkin, screwdriver. You have to coax the STB holes over the bolts as they
are raised up.
It might look hard, but it can be done. I'm no Arnold Scwahrzenneger, and I
had no problems. Once you have the STB attached to both strut towers, you can
attach it to the firewall. Then when you think your done, lower the hood
SLOWLY. Some list members have had clearance problems . At this point you
will probably notice that the alignment of the hood is now totally screwed.
This is fixed easily by loosening the hinge bolts, one side at a time, and
realigning the hood. Proceed immediately to you neighbourhood alignment shop,
and get the front end sorted out. I used:
Camber : As much negative as possible. I went with -1.5 degrees.
Toe : 1/16 " toe-in
The car is much happier through the curves now. General concensus is that the
tolerances on the Mustang assembly line are a LOT worse than those of Maier.
After having the brace on for a few thousand miles, I am VERY happy. I used to
have wear problems on the shoulders of my tires. The brace, and the above
alignment specs have fixed that.
I know exactly what your going through right now. All I can say is DON"T
PANIC. I did the same thing, and I now know that I needn't have worried.
Good Luck, and keep us posted on how it turns out. I'll look in my archives
and email you the thread from earlier this year, that might make you feel
better.
16 Oct 1995
Eugene Y C Chu
[email protected]
Well, I read that Ford was supposed to use the rear end from the TBird, which
I think included an A-arm upper, H-arm lower, and some trailing type links.
I'm not sure if anyone's ever put the TBird to at-the-edge handling and found
its weaknesses or strengths. However, I do remember that Jim Bittle did such
a conversion after welding in a full subframe at the rear. It was his
prototype for the Street Dominator packages, and he was offering the
conversion for $54,000, plus your car. Needless to say, he didn't get many
takers. But he was trying to sell the prototype at the 30th aniversary Fun
Ford Weekend at the Knot's Berry Farm in April of 1994. If I had $24,000 at
the time, I may have actually considered it seriously. But aside from the
money, something else he said was a sort of a deterrent: he said the rear end
of the car was now sorted out, so much so that the front end, even with some
of his mods, is woefully inadequate. And this goes back to what you and a
bunch of other folks have said (including me): the basic platform of the Fox
chassis is simply inadequate for good performance. Assuming you can
surgically alter it further to work, you' ve turned it into something else,
which would have cost you less to purchase in the first place (like maybe a
Corvette or a RX7).
15 Oct 1995
"Theodore A. Chen"
>Well, the Maier STB install is turning into a gold-plated b*tch. The initial
>disassembly steps went fine, except for this horrible grating noise from the
>strut towers while raising the front of the car with the stock plates off
>the car (probably the strut mount bolt threads grating against the holes).
if all you got was a horrible grating noise from the strut towers,
count yourself lucky. i got creaking from the car itself in addition
to the sound of the bolts scraping against the holes in the strut tower.
>HOWEVER, as many people have experienced, the fit is off. WAY off, IMO.
>It seems to fit okay (not great, just okay) at the firewall and on the
>passenger side, but the holes on the driver's side are nearly 1/2" too far
>inboard (the whole strut tower needs to be "persuaded" inward). I really
>don't know if I can manage moving it that far, even with a crowbar, and I'm
>not sure I'd want to if I could.
the STB can be quite far from fitting, as many of us have found out. earlier
this year, several of us speculated that the STBs were off. but a l*st member
laid that to rest with a post about the production tolerances (which are quite
loose) and about how the STBs are welded in a jig to pretty close tolerances
(1/8"?). you can try measuring your STB to see if it's really 1/2" off.
maybe Maier did screw up somewhere.
i had plenty of trouble getting mine to line up properly. for one thing, i
found that the STB's firewall attachment was straight while my firewall was
convex. the few people that i asked about this said that their firewalls were
straight. (!!!!) i solved that problem by putting a slight curve into the
STB's firewall attachment with a hammer.
then i mounted the STB to the passenger side strut tower, and put one bolt
into the firewall to attach the STB. new problem: the driver's side mounting
plate was about 1/2" off (too far inboard and too far forward) from the strut
tower. i had my friend really lean on the STB. with him pushing on the
crossbrace and me pulling on it, plus a slight adjustment of the car's frame
with a floor jack, we were able to get it to merely 1/4" off. the firewall's
curve changed slightly. at this point, i used a big screwdriver and pried the
hell out of it to get everything into place.
of course, i made sure the car was firmly blocked so it wouldn't move all over
the place while we were leaning on the STB.
once i got everything into place, i wasn't about to take it all out to drill
the rest of the holes in the firewall, so i simply drilled them with the STB
in place. but the holes on the far sides are blocked by the STB's braces, so
i just drove around with 3 holes for a while, hoping that the car would bend a
bit so that the installation wouldn't be as difficult the next time. two
weeks later, i yanked the STB, drilled two more holes, and put the STB back in
with noticeably less pain than before.
there's one more possibility, which is to place a jack under the front
subframe on the driver's side to twist the frame so you can try to get those
holes to line up. i've found that even with my subframe connectors, if i jack
up the car at the front of the driver's side subframe connector, the driver's
front wheel goes up while the rest of the wheels stay on the ground. (i have
to get a roll cage in there.)
i was concerned about bending my car so much, but i convinced myself that my
car was bent and i was merely bending it back into shape. as a matter of
fact, the car has settled into a new shape. when i changed over to CCM camber
plates, it took only the slightest bit of prying to get the STB plates to line
up.
i still have to pry a bit to adjust the camber, though.
>The brace seems to almost be interfering with the distributor, too,
>coming down way too close to the plug wire boots.
that's normal. the STB crossbrace comes very close to the #1 plug on the
distributor cap. Bill Maier told me 1/8" of clearance is fine. my engine sits
up a bit higher than it should, because i have the convertible motor mounts.
(there may be room to let the engine back down a bit, which i'll have to check
one of these days.) my STB wasn't quite touching the boot over the
distributor, but for my own comfort, i use some 1/8" grade 8 washers under the
STB plates as spacers. a better solution would be to drill holes in a piece of
steel and use that as a spacer.
i have some slight interference with the hood on the driver's side. i need to
remove the underhood insulation and possibly dent the hood bracing slightly.
i mounted the the STB a bit too high on the firewall.
all this assumes that your car wasn't in an accident that totally bent it out
of shape.
>Yours in fear and exasperation,
it's not that bad. it just takes a lot of shoving and swearing to get it to
fit. but once you get it in, you'll be glad you did. the difference in
handling is very noticeable.
you may need a friend to help you this time around. i don't know if i could
have done the initial installation alone.
it can be done. after all, i did it on an '87 with T-tops and over 130k miles
(i.e. bent).
18 Oct 1995
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
fordnatics
Since I commented on these parts the other day, I got the manufacturer and a
part number. It is made by Coleman Machine Inc.(the same people who make brake
rotors) and the part number is 808-951. I had incorrectly said this was an
AFCO part. They may make one also but the ones I got are from Coleman. It is
reffered to as a Bump Steer Pin Assembly. Coleman's # is (906)863-7883. Most
oval track supply houses sell Coleman stuff, but if you don't have one locally
you can buy direct from Coleman.
18 Oct 1995
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
fordnatics
>> 2) t-bird control arms - both front ball joints are going bad in my
>> '86 GT. the car currently has all stock suspension but will ultimately
>> get the M2300K kit. if i buy t-bird control arms (with ball joints
>> already installed) will they fit my '86 spindles and also the M2300K
>> spindles? what year(s) t-bird control arms do i want?
>
>'87-88 will work for sure with the '79-86 spindles, the '87-93
>spindles, and the SN95 spindles. Thanks, Ford, for not just
>gratuitously changing the ball joint stud specs... If you're currently
Just a quick note here. The one set of spindles that this will not work for
are the 84-86 SVO Mustang spindles (which also means ~82-84 Continental
spindles I think). These have a larger ball joint stud, but there is
supposedly a taper adapter that will adapt from one to the other. Before the
SN95 spindles these may have been the most desirable spindles for a Mustang,
but they are sort of a dead issue now.
20 Oct 1995
[email protected]
On Oct 20, Michael Herrmann wrote:
> However, the SPSSs have come out since then, and I'm going to try them
> just to get the experience. I've tried Red KONIs on cars in the 80's,
> pre-SPSS, and they were OK, but not up to the 1000-pound front springs
> I've started running these days. On my '94 Cobra, I tried a 1000-pound
> spring, and I don't think the Tokicos were sufficient to handle them. The
> SPSS is a race-oriented strut/shock, the ride will suffer on the street
> compared to the Tokicos. But, live and learn....
I'm currently running the Sport double-adjustables with 1000lb front springs,
and I do like that setup. For most of our very smooth California tracks I set
them up right in the center of the adjustment range on jounce, and down 180deg
from full stiff on rebound.
I'm getting ready to upgrade the front suspension to a coilover setup using
the Griggs Racing parts, and I think that that should be very sweet. The
coilover setup will drop onto the SP and SPSS struts with no modifications
required (to put it on the Reds, the gland nut plate has to be removed- the
yellow struts don't have this plate). I'll be going to 400lb springs, which
due to the vastly more favorable leverage ratio (the springs act directly on
the strut bodies, not halfway up the control arm!) will result in a slightly
lower wheel rate. I'll have a lot less weight flinging around out there,
though, so it should still work out well...
You may find the SPSS valving to be a little bit brutal on the street. Even
when adjusted full soft, the jounce damping is _stout_. I'd recommend carrying
a screwdriver with you to retighten those interior panels as the work loose-
but on the track, I think you'll like them.
20 Oct 1995
Brian Kelley
fordnatics
"Jeff" writes:
> BTW, the front end geometry on the '96 Cobra (new K-member, modified
>lower control arms, modified spindle; resulting in much better geometry
>and camber curves) is far ahead of the 94/95 (which of course is way ahead
>of the 79-93). I'm really impressed - the front of the car is great.
Wrong, and not very close.
Far ahead of the '94/95? Hardly.. Where do you get this stuff?
What makes you think the camber curve was improved? There are really
very few ways to change or improve it on a MacPhearson strut car.
There were no changes to the A-arms for the '96 Cobra.
The larger engine required the steering rack to be lowered 1". Accordingly,
the tie rod end pickup on the spindle was lowered 1". That was the only
spindle change. It was driven by packaging limitations and had nothing to do
with performance.
The only performance related change to those components was the introduction
of some brake anti-dive via control arm pickup point relocation. The front
point was moved down and the rear up.
There are many schools of thought on anti-dive. It isn't necessarily the hot
setup in the front as it tends to create suspension bind and chatter under
hard braking.
When I relocated the front control arms on my Capri, I chose to use all of the
available space to raise the roll center (by raising both points .91") rather
than add anti-dive. Incidentally, my modified front K-member will be going up
for sale soon. I haven't decided on a price. I'll be going to an SLA of my
own design for next season.
Good struts and shocks will go a long way towards eliminating much of the dive
in the Mustang. A torque arm or other good rear suspension will get you most
of the rest of the way.
When you add anti-dive, you don't really change the amount of weight transfer
to the front wheels under braking. You mainly change how that weight is
transferred to the front wheels. Rather than transferring it through the
springs, you transfer it through the suspension pickup points.
25 Oct 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Oct 23, Larry Harris wrote:
> While this is all out, I figured that I should probably be updating my
> rear lower control arms, and determined the best solution is probably to
> update to the police/taxi parts. What I would like to know, is what is
> the difference between the Motorsport Upper Control arms and the police/
> taxi arms? The cop parts are twice the money.
The difference between the Motorsport arms and the P/T arms is fairly minimal.
The rubber in the P/T bushings is a fraction harder than in the Motorsport
bushings. Both sets of bushings are *significantly* stiffer than the stock
items. An interesting combination might be to run the Motorsport arms with the
P/T bushings pressed into the axle center section, since the axle end bushings
are available separately. In fact, a buddy of mine who may not be on the list
is running that setup, since he bought my old axle with the P/T bushings still
in it-I'll have to ask him what he thinks of it. In any case, you should
probably save the money and just go with the Motorsport arms. Jim Dingell
([email protected]) has both items available- you might drop him a line
and ask him what he thinks for your application.
> I would also like to hear from anyone who has installed the M-2300-K on
> an 86 or earlier car with what they needed to adapt / retrofit in order
> to make the kit work. I would really rather not replumb the whole system
> as Skod did! If I don't hear from anyone, I'll post a summary of what I
> needed to complete the install. I'm psyched.
You shouldn't have too much difficulty, once you work past the one or
two known annoyances with the kit (such as the incorrect flare fittings
supplied with the prop valve). You might get in touch with Chris Ihara, or
look at the installation story he's written up on his Late Mustang Corral web
site (http://www.corral.com/corral, I think- I can't get this web stuff to
work reliably through Sun's never-to-be-sufficiently-damned firewall).
30 Oct 1995
[email protected]
On Oct 27, Keven Coates wrote:
> -1.56 degrees is a very large degree of camber. Besides wearing your
> tires, this will degrade braking performance because the negative
> camber will only get worse as your car dives under braking.
This entirely depends upon your car's setup. There is very little camber gain
in bump with the stock setup, and lowered cars are often on the far side of
that and run camber _loss_ in bump. The strut cars are hard pressed to come up
with camber gain from _any_ source.
If you're running stock springs and bushings, running 2deg of camber and the
stock 1/8" or so of toe in, you can certainly get very much accelerated wear
on the inside edges. But negative camber *alone* isn't the culprit. It's the
entire front end setup, especially the car's basic Ackerman geometry (heavily
negative) and bump steer behavior.
On my heavily-modified car, I run 4.5deg negative camber and 3/16 toe-out both
on the street and the track (and 5deg caster). I run these settings on the
street primarily because I'm getting too lazy in my old age to go reset the
camber at the track before I drive home. I get excellent tire temperature
distribution, excellent grip, and I have very little adverse wear problem even
on my street tires (which are also a very soft compound- I commute on my rain
tires). The only way I can do this is that I have morked the brains out of the
front suspension, and completely changed the car's Ackerman and bump steer
behavior so that it doesn't drag the unweighted inside tire along sideways
when cornering. If you do some development work, you'll find that one of the
car's biggest problems are tring to get the inside front to do anything other
than act as a speed-brake in this manner.
With a nearly stock setup, consider playing with the toe (going to zero toe or
a slight toe out) to help with this situation. The Mustang's strut front end
needs all the negative camber it can *get* to keep from going positive when
the body rolls (which is why late Mustangs kill the _outside_ shoulders of the
tires when drive hard). For a street car, I heartily recommend that folks try
to get every drop of caster they possibly can out of the car (up to and
including having a good alignment shop pull the K-frame forward to the limit
of its slots!), run 1.5-2deg negative camber, and run the absolute minimum toe
that they are comfortable with (toe out with the soft stock bushings can cause
instability under braking, and some folks find it offputting).
When you start really carving on the front suspension, the first substantive
change you make is to reduce the car's negative Ackerman geometry (relocating
the rack aft and up, relocating the steering arms forward and down). The
second thing you do is to correct the car's *massive* bump steer. Once these
things are done, you'll find that negative camber compromises your tire life
and your maximum braking capabilities to a *much* lesser degree. The tradeoff
in maximum braking force versus negative camber doesn't start getting severe
until you get into the 4-5deg range, _if the suspension is well behaved in
bump_.
As delivered, it isn't. The stock front suspension goes toe-in to a rediculous
degree in bump, and if the car is lowered, is is _worse_ (since it is starting
out in bump by definition, once the car is slammed!). That's where a lot of
your braking grip goes when you're hard on the brakes with the stock setup:
both front tires are pointing in, pigeontoed, and scuffing along sideways.
The factory alignment settings are a pretty non-optimal compromise, as a
result. In order to make the car a nice, predicatble understeerer, a lot of
things have been traded off in ways that the performance driver might no agree
with. The good news is that folks who install the M-2300-K brake kit will get
a sizable amount of this geometric improvement for free, as the SN95 spindles
are much improved over the old Fox parts in this department.
30 Oct 1995
"Brian St. Denis"
[email protected] (5.0ML List),
Installing the M-2300-K brake kit takes many hours of labor. And, this isn't
the type of labor where you stand around thinking about what needs to be done,
this is the using tools and loosening fittings type work. Lots of it.
Fortunately, I had lots and lots of help. List member Mark Bettin supplied
the garage and lots of help. List members Robert King and Mike Herrmann also
supplied elbow grease. In addition to us four, Mark had friends Bud and Jay
come over to help who I did not even know before the work started. I had heard
that Bud was a trained Ford mechanic.
I'll just hit the highlight and low lights as the other write ups that have
been posted here are very accurate. My car is a 1993 GT.
Soon as the car was supported on jack stands, Jay had the diff cover off and
the rank odor of diff fluid filled the garage and surrounding counties.
Yuuuck. Just a few minutes later, we had all four wheels off and were ready
to start tossing some stock brake parts.
Calipers were taken off the spindle and off flex line for the last time. We
then put the stock caliper next to the new Cobra caliper out side and took a
few before and after photos. We were getting excited at this point. The, we
took the rotors off and did some shots of the new rotor versus old rotor/hub
assembly. What a difference!
Bud and I started on removing a spindle. He showed us how to do it easily
without hammering on it too hard. Basically, we undid the tie-rod end and
left the strut connected to the spindle. Then, with jack under the a-arm, we
loosened the ball joint nut up about 1". Then, as we lowered the jack, the
spring pushed down on the a-arm but the strut wouldn't let the spindle go with
it. After a tap or two on the spindle with the 5-lb sledge (light taps) the
tapered fitting let go due to the force from the spring and the spindle was
free.
By the time we had both side spindles off, the rear caliper mounting plates
were in and the new axles were going in. At this point, we were really
cooking.
Since Bud really knew what he was doing, the new spindles went on about as
easily. We connected them up to the tie rods and the strut and were on our
way. Then, the new hub, which came greased and had the bearings in it went
right on. I borrowed a 250 ft/lb torque wrench from Auto Zone and was able to
get right at 250 for the front hubs. After that, the new rotor and caliper
went on easily.
When I went to take out the stock booster, the nuts are indeed hard to get to.
Even with my front seat out, I could not bend my back enough to get up under
there for the top two nuts (I'm 6'6"). Fortunately, Mark Bettin was able to
get in there and get those two out. Yes!
Robert King had taken off the master cylinder and now the stock proportioning
valve was next. Bud had brought Mac flare wrenches which are _significantly_
more better than the no-name ones I had from Chief Auto Parts. I suggest
buying the good ones if you buy flare wrenches.
With that stuff out, Mark gutted the new prop valve while Bud and I began to
figure out how all this stuff was going to fit back together. The first pain
that we knew about was the front left brake line to the gutted prop valve.
The old prop valve had a bubble flare fitting while the new one has a double
flare fitting. The instructions say to cut and re-flare the existing line.
We tried to figure a way to get around cutting and re-flaring. Making a long
story short, we spent 2 hours driving around to parts stores but could not
find a way to adapt the existing hardware to the new prop valve with flare
adapters. Why Ford had to use some double flare and some bubble flares with
different size nuts is beyond me.
Eventually, we came to a parts store where they do custom brake line work. He
said we should bring him the line and he would double-flare it for us. So, I
called back to "the shop" and 10 minutes later, Mike Herrmann rolled up with
my brake line. 5 minutes later, I had a double flare on the end with the
correct nut. I suggest doing this approach FIRST.
While we were out messing with this part of the story, we also had the
adjustable prop valve with us. The problem: when you try to put the adapter
that came with the kit into the prop valve, it only turns down about 3 turns,
then won't go any farther. While at Pep Boys, they have a chain with all the
different threads on it. Even the best one of those fit the same as the
adapter with the kit. One of the parts store guys said that it was a pipe
thread fitting and it was meant to get tight after a few turns. This is the
only fitting like that in this system. Since we still hadn't found an adapter
that worked better, what else could we try?
So, back to "the shop" we went. First thing to do, get the new booster in.
"... relieving of the inner fender well may be necessary." Yeah, right. Major
damage to the fender well IS necessary. You should have seen the look on the
guys faces as Mark Bettin fires up the torch and I grab the 5-lbs sledge. Why
waste time making it pretty? After a few seconds of heat, WHAM! Made a
little dent. After more heat, though, each blow made visible progress. Then,
we'd let it cool and test fit the booster. Wouldn't fit. Booster out, more
heat, more sledge. Each blow, the guys working in the back would make the
Homer Simpson sound when he gets hit on the head: D'oh! After 3 test fits, we
finally had enough dent to get it in.
After that part, the master cylinder and gutted prop valve went in ok. And,
we just used the adapters that came with the kit for the adj prop valve.
From here, the parking brake was next. We used a dremmel tool to cut off the
tab on the coil spring and on the adjuster. From here, Bud used his arc
welder to weld the handle in position. (Chris and Teddy's write up covers
this.)
After some final finishing up stuff, like putting the seat back in and re-
installing the console, we were ready to bleed the system. We didn't bench
bleed anything as we were so concerned about getting all the fittings to work
that we didn't really have time.
We started in the right rear with Robert King on the brake pedal and Jay
keeping the reservoir full with el-cheapo brake fluid. After 10 or 15 pumps,
Jay said the reservoir wasn't going down fast. Hum. I thought I'd
...
stream side of the adj prop valve. So, I took it off and used my thumb as the
valve. After like 2 pumps, some mist came out. One the third pump, fluid
came out but not a good full pump worth. I didn't mention this to the guys.
On pump 4, fluid came out rather quickly so I thought I'd use my thumb to stop
the flow. Yeah, right. That made the fluid squirt all over the inside engine
compartment, across the passenger's side fender and even onto the wall in the
garage. Good one Brian!
Then, I went back to the right rear and fluid eventually came out. I went to
each corner 3 times before Robert said the pedal was pretty firm. Then, I
started the car to use booster assisted force on the system. Even with the
boost from the booster, the pedal was firm. Yes! We did one more quick check
of each fitting in the bakes system and found no leaks! Double Yes!
After putting on the wheels, we did an alignment. Since this has been covered
recently, I'll skip the details. After that, we went for a test drive. I
asked who felt confident enough to be the passenger as we did the initial
brake test headings towards a busy intersection and no one volunteered. :-)
Finally, Jay volunteered and we tried them out.
The brakes feel really awesome and work perfectly for the street. The pedal
currently goes down about 1" before getting hard to press and about another
1/2 inch before if feels like standing on a rock. The brakes now feel like
all four corners are trying to stop the car. In fact, it seems that during
initial braking the car squats, then tips towards the front. I am not sure if
this is psychological or not. However, I know for a fact that Mike Herrmann
said that the seat belt hurt his next/shoulder when I was testing braking
yesterday.
I think the job was a total success. I took from 9:30 am until 9:30 pm,
roughly, after test drive, pizza for lunch, 2 hours wasted looking for
adapters and a very good alignment.
In addition to the brakes being awesome, the Cobra wheels I got from Brian
Kelley look great. My friends have been drooling all weekend over the black
on black GT, tinted windows, lowered, with Cobra wheels and brakes.
However, not _everything_ goes perfectly. Last weekend, Mike Herrmann and I
washed and waxed our cars. It rained the next day. That was the first time
it had rained in 27 days here in the Dallas area. Sunday, Mike and I washed
our cars again. And, again, it rained the following day. It has now rained 2
days in 34, both after we washed/waxed our cars. :-)
This car will be raced (driving school) in 2 weeks. Can the pads that came
with the kit handle a easy braking tack like TWS?
30 Oct 1995
[email protected]
On Oct 27, Teddy Chen wrote:
> how do these bushings compare in stiffness to polyurethane bushings?
> what about neoprene? the guy i bought my car from said he had replaced
> all the bushings in the rear suspension with neoprene. judging by the
> polished areas on the inside sidewalls of my rear tires, there's
> significant lateral deflection of the rear end.
They are significantly softer than the urethanes, and will handle the "twist"
type deformations needed to accommodate body roll a bit better. The tradeoffs
are pretty simple: urethanes are noisier, damned near too stiff, and higher
maintenance, but locate the axle a great deal better and are pretty cheap.
The high-zoot rubber bushings are low maintenance, quiet, still let the axle
flop around a bit, and expensive.
I ran the P/T parts for a long time before going with the torque arm/Panhard
setup I have now. I personally have never run urethanes in the rear, but I
know a great many folks who have who have had decent results, and think I was
nuts for spending all that money. Your mileage may vary!
I have no idea what magical trick "neoprene" bushings those might be-I haven't
heard of anyone who makes them and *markets* them as such. Shoot, the stock
bushings are a bonded neoprene compound, as are the Motorsport and P/T parts.
I think your seller was confused. I'd bet that you just have stock bushings in
there.
Interesting side note on making maintainable rear suspension mods: In his book
Mustang Performance Handbook 2 (and in the Slot Car Mustangs manual that
predates it), Bill Mathis advocates using urethane bushings and welding a
stiffening plate on the control arms to "box in" the open side of the U-shaped
stampings, in order to stiffen them. This works, but at a pretty high price in
bind and in fatigue life.
IMHO, this is a really bad idea, for those two reasons. Firstly- the urethane
bushings are much stiffer and non-compliant in the case of twisting
deflections. There is necessarily a lot of twist in the Fox 4-link in roll, so
you have to be able to accommodate it *somehow*. The stock stamped arms
actually twist very readily along their length, since they are an open U-
channel (a structure that has fairly low torsional stiffness). If you box them
in, that makes them *too* stiff torsionally to accommodate the loads from the
urethane bushings, and the car will go loose.
Secondly, the plates necessarily end short of the ends of the arms, creating a
_mondo_ stress-riser right at the corners of the added plate (where the
structure transitions from stiff box to flexible U-channel). *All* the
inevitable deflection will therefore occur right at the ends of the added
plates. If boxed-in stock upper arms are used for roadracing use with urethane
bushings on both ends, they _will_ crack at the ends of the welds. The
question is not if, but when. This is why the aftermarket arms that are rigid
tubular structures need to have torsionally compliant bushings, and also why
you can get away with using less compliant bushings in the stock arms.
Ford has done a masterful job of designing inexpensive, manufacturable
structures that can deflect *just enough*, and comply with overloads well
enough to have a decent fatigue life. In the case of these arms, mucking with
them by overstiffening them can have some unpleasant side effects, either for
the arms or for the chassis pickup points. Just like using solid-bushing lift
bars and doing dragrace launches will eventually tear the torque boxes off the
tub. If you're going to stiffen these areas, you have to do it with an eye
towards preserving decent fatigue life, and stiffen arms and pickup points as
a unit!
> will replacing the upper control arm chassis side bushings with
> polyurethane help? are there other kinds of bushings that would help?
IMHO, yes- as long as you retain the rubber bushing in the axle ears. You'll
pick up some additional roll stiffness due to bind at the limits of roll, but
you probably will not find it objectionable. In any case, it is an easy thing
to experiment with. Just keep an eye on the health of the rubber bushings you
retain in the axle ears, to make sure that they do not debond due to the
greater stresses they'll see and allow the hardened bushing shell to do a
cookie-cutter routine on the arm.
31 Oct 1995
[email protected] (Calvin Sanders)
[email protected] (Dave Williams)
>-> I was reffering to your 12.??" rotors. That was the setup I used with
>-> those rims. Standard stock car Martinsville setup.
>
> Oh. Yeah, 12" and a hair over will fit as long as the caliper isn't
>too fat. I wish I could afford the wheels and tires to go to 17s or
>18s, though. The brake parts wouldn't cost any more, and Coleman makes
>some beautiful 14" rotors for cheap. Unfortunately, just one 18" wheel
>and tire would cost what I expect to pay for a set of four 15".
You know one of the Mustang Magazines (Think it was the Nov MM&FF) has an SVO
Mustang on the Front Cover with 17" Corvette wheels. They have lots of
backspacing. I know one of the Corvette makers has big aluminum adaptors that
are intended to adapt these wheels to early Corvettes, but I have heard that
the adaptors can be drilled to almost any bolt pattern. 17" Vette wheels sell
regularly for $3-400/set which ain't too bad for wheels that size and they
will easily clear the 13.xx" rotors the ZR1's have.
Those adaptors are OK for use in the Corvette Clubs high speed events. They
are much beter than typical old adaptors which I wouldn't recommend anyone to
use BTW.
31 Oct 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Oct 31, [email protected] (Robert King) wrote:
> This is somthing I'm considering also, and I have a couple of questions.
> What's the most it be moved back? And is the maximum going to cause
> trouble? I'm concerned with hitting the firewall when the engine is
> torquing over, and access to the rear of the engine (PCV valve, rear
> sparkplugs, and hrader access. I don't want to end up in the same
> situation as F-body owners!
1" is just about the maximum that still leaves decent access.
> This intrigues me. Just what do you plan to do with that hatch apart
> from inspecting the clutch? Will you be able to servece/replace it? If
> so, I REALLY want to hear more!
I'll be able to replace it without even having to drop my headers (since my
plans include eventually going with long-tubes, once a trailer and tow vehicle
get bought). There's not much to it. You cut the scattershield (which isn't
easy- those suckers are _tough_), removing a 10" x 4" segment on the lower
edge. You leave the stock bolt holes for mounting to the engine plate
untouched on the leading edge, and you weld 1/4" thick tabs onto the hatch so
that the other 3 "free" edges can be supported every 2-3". Drill and tap
holes for 3/8" hardware at each tab location in the scattershield, clearance
drill each tab to match, bolt it home with nice tough hardware, and and you're
done.
To change clutches, pull the tranny, open the hatch, and work through the
opening to remove the pressure plate bolts... This only works, of course, if
the flywheel doesn't need resurfacing. You still have to pull the whole thing
down if the flywheel has to come out. My fabricator has done several cars this
way, and highly recommends it for cars that don't have to run unmodified SFI
scattershields.
I've personally never hurt a clutch. My driving style, and the type of track
driving I like to do, are very easy on clutches. Believe it or not, I'm still
running my original stock clutch, untouched, just the way it was shipped out
of the factory in 1986, after 53 track events and 130,000 total mailes. But
given that it takes a *huge* amount of work to pull those scattershields
(especially with the engine set back!), I figure that I'll just plan ahead,
just in case the new motor is stout enough to hurt the Motorsport clutch I've
laid in for the job.
This mod probably doesn't apply for you dragrace types that need an SFI-rated
scattershield. I have no idea what the rules are, but you'd best check with
your sanctioning body in advance before you break out the cutter and render
your $250 scattershield illegal...
07 Nov 1995
[email protected]
On Nov 5, "Theodore A. Chen" wrote:
> i must be missing something. as far as i can tell, your upper control
> arms have not been changed, nor have the bushings. it seems to me that
> using lower control arms with spherical bearings would indeed reduce
> bind, to the extent that the lower control arms would no longer help in
> laterally locating the rear end. that is the problem i'm having right now.
> the upper control arms are the only things that are keeping my axle
> from sliding out the sides of the car, and they aren't doing the job very
> well.
The lower control arms contribute very little to the lateral location of the
axle. They are very long and nearly parallel, and as a result they have no
real leverage to resist the lateral forces, regardless of the type of bushing
used. The use of spherical bearings or other torsionally compliant bushings is
strictly to preserve the ability of the axle to move through roll deflection
(bump on one side, droop on the other) without bind. The primary job of those
arms is to absorb the bulk of the driveline's thrust loads and to oppose rear
axle steer. They act in tension and compression, not in bending.
In the 4-link, essentially all the lateral location of the axle is done by the
_upper_ arms, regardless of the bushings in the lower arms. There is a second-
order effect caused by the elimination of the extremely compliant (fore/aft)
large oval bushing in the lower arm, but it is swamped by the compliances in
the upper arms.
Let's just ignore the lower arms for a moment, and look instead at the uppers
by themselves, in top view. The upper arms, tub, and axle form a trapezoid.
Ideally, they'd form a triangle, picking up the axle at a single point. This
would allow much better control of the axle laterally, and would eliminate
much of the car's bushing deflection rear steer that we're going to discuss
below. But packaging constraints result in the axle itself forming one side of
the trapezoid- the "short side".
-----------------O---axle---O-----------------
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
------------O---------tub--------O-------------
As the axle absorbs lateral loads, the bushings deflect. And what happens when
you deflect a trapezoid like that (squashing the short "top" segment, which is
the axle, laterally)? You get roll understeer, in the case of the Mustang's
aft-convergent arms. The trapezoid tries to collapse. The outside (tension)
arm "lays over" more, and the inside (compression) arm "stands up" more. The
resulting deflection pulls the outside tire forward, and pushes the inside
tire aft with respect to the tub. The lower arms have to resist this- and
with the big fat soft oval lower arm bushing, they _can't_, and some
angulation will creep in. Viola': the rear axle starts trying to steer the
car, proportional to the lateral acceleration. Instant bushing deflection
understeer, as the axle tries to turn the rear end *into* the turn.
<--------axle displaces thataway
^
| ----------------O----axle___O_________________ |
/ \ V
inside / \ outside
/ \
/ \
------------O---------tub--------O-----------
Here's another key ingredient in the Mustang's "power pendulum" behavior, and
another reason that I don't care for the "antisquat bracket" (lower arm pickup
lowering) method of trying to improve handling, especially with stock bushings
still in place. You don't want to lump all sorts of roll oversteer on top of
the soft-bushing roll understeer. The car's schizophrenic enough at the limit
as it is, and once you get the axle slamming back and forth and the weight
transferring all over the place, the car can become one hell of a handful at
the limit. One nice shove (like from hitting an unexpected wet spot, patch of
oil, or some sand when in a high-speed fully loaded corner), and you can have
one *fine* set of lock-to-lock tankslappers going with the stock bushings in
place. Rear axle steer is _bad_ ,and opposing rear steer effects from opposing
sources is _worse_.
Getting rid of the large, fore/aft compliant, lower arm bushings does quite a
bit to control the trapezoid-deflection rear axle steer behavior on the car.
On the surface, it would seem that just putting Heims everywhere, in all 8
pivot points, would be the ideal solution. It isn't- the instant centers
enforced by the upper and lower arms don't coincide, so there would be massive
bind in roll. In the case of the Fox 4-link, you need to keep some compliance
_somewhere_.
Probably the best compromise would be Heims (or equivalent torsionally
compliant, but fore/aft rigid bushings) in the lowers, and Heims on the front
end and stock rubber at the rear end on the uppers. In this manner, the
remaining trapezoidal deflection would be opposed and hopefully controlled by
the lowers, which act in compression in a larger-based, more obtuse trapezoid
to oppose any angulation of the axle. They have better leverage, so they win.
This puts one hell of a torsional load in the axle's center section, of
course, but it's there anyway- the rigid bushings just make the peak loads
higher.
Or you cab just declare victory and change the rules, like those of us who've
gone 3-link or Torque Arm have done.
Ain't this stuff _fun_?
10 Nov 1995
[email protected]
On Nov 9, Daniel Barnes wrote:
> Although a Panhard bar locates the axle fairly positively, the location
> changes laterally with vertical movement of the suspension. The stock
> four-link attempts to hold the axle in its centered position, so it
> binds. In order for the Panhard bar to work, the upper arms that
> normally do the lateral locating must be eliminated. Something then has
> to be added to do the job of locating the top of the axle fore-aft. Go
> to your Chevy dealer and take a look under a 96 Geo Tracker to see the
> way it should be done.
Actually, for an even better example, look under Frank Stagnaro's many-time CM
national champion Shelby GT350 autocross car. It has the longitudinal A-
frame/outer control arms rear suspension you describe, but the A-frame is on
the lower mount (the spherical bearing is under the center section) and the
outer arms are located above the axle centerline, a'la the old Shelby override
traction bars (which is actually what they started life as).
This lets the roll center be significantly lower, which can be an advantage-
with the spherical bearing somewhere on top of the center section, there's no
way to get the RC down very far. The tradeoff is that you can't get as much
antisquat with the outer arms without having some cabin intrusion problems,
but in the case of Frank's car, he uses very little, opting instead for more
spring rate. In this suspension, you still have to fight roll steer if you use
antisquat, whether the A frame is above or below. But mounting it below the
tub may allow it to be wider based without cabin intrusion. Just a thought...
S9/Performance/Muscle
22-Dec-95 21:58:30
John A/TN 74553,701
I have an '87 GT I've modified for autocross.
>>>>>>how important is the spring rate?
The absolute numbers are less important than the balance front to rear, as
long as the rate is high enough to prevent bottoming with the remaining wheel
travel. If you lower the car, the spring rate must be higher than stock.
>>>>>>>And two, what does the rear sway bar do for the handling of the car?
The roll center of the front suspension is 4" above ground and the roll center
of the rear is 16.5" above ground. This makes a roll axis that slopes
downward toward the front of the car. When the body rolls, weight is
transfered to the outside tires in a turn. Sway bars control body roll.
Since the roll axis slopes down and forward, more weight is transfered to the
outside front tire from the inside rear tire. A stiffer rear sway bar reduces
the weight transfered from the inside rear tire and reduces the load on the
outside front tire. The reduced load on the outside front tire reduces
understeer.
HOWEVER, springs also control body roll, so they work with the sway bars. All
should be matched.
The design of the rear sway bar confuses the rear suspension by adding lateral
stiffness at the lower arms. The upper arms are supposed to control lateral
movement. That means, get a "floating" rear sway bar designed like the front
bar. A well designed set is sold by DOBI. Addco, sells a 3/4" floating rear
that should match your smallish front bar well.
S9/Performance/Muscle
24-Dec-95 22:53:59
John A/TN 74553,701
The Steeda bar is/was made by Addco. It is a 5/8" version of their 3/4"
supplemental bar. I have the 3/4" bar; it is a "floater" and probably would be
enough with a 1 1/8" front by itself. Look for DOBI in the back of Car and
Driver, or Road and Track. The ad might be for Hondas or somesuch, they do a
lot of cars. They haven't kept up with the Mustang market, so they won't tell
you their rear bar will fit. It does.
07 Dec 1995
Brian Kelley
fordnatics
Scott Hung writes:
>>The black ZR-1 is a fully prepared race car, with full cage, open
>>exhaust, removed interior, etc. Nobody wants to drive a Mustang like this on
>>the street.
> Um, I guess you haven't gotten the opportunity to check out the '94
>Mustang.Net video that Andre pulled together? If you had, you'd've seen
>this is what skod's (daily driven) Mustang is like. With the exception of
>the open exhaust, of course. As far as I know, his only comment is to
>stay off of Botts dots on the freeway...
I'm in the same boat, but even more "unstreetable" than Skod's. My commute to
work is 29 miles each way, so I rarely drive it there. I do love to drive it
on shorter trips. It's just an absolute blast. Stock 5.0's are great -
everyone should own a V8 (hmm, not everyone). Seriously modified 5.0's are
even better.
Streetable? You make the call! I've put about 3500 miles on it in more or
less the current configuration:
19 point cage, diagonal through the front seat passenger area, aluminum race
seat, fiberglass rear hatch and lexan windows everywhere except the
windshield, of course no interior or heat/blower system, no wipers, no turn
signals, no dash, hand wired electrical system, autometer gauges, 3 link
suspension in the back seat area, completely gutted passenger door, air intake
that protrudes from hole in hood, aluminum cased close ratio toploader, ABS
unit where the backseat was, 13"/12" PBR brakes, 1700 lbs front springs (not a
typo) with a 1.125" bar, 500 lbs springs in the rear coil overs with no bar,
16x12 wheels for the track, a little under 2700 lbs, 9" floater rear end with
a Detroit Locker, etc. and a very pleasing sound at 7,000.
Though still unpainted and generally ugly as hell by any definition. But
there's something special about having the rattiest looking car *and* FTD.
"unstreetable" is _extremely_ relative. I have yet to meet a cop who didn't
think it was cool. "Sir, did you know that your license plate light is out?"
"Hmm. You know officer, you're right. I never thought to wire one."
The plan for next season is an SLA suspension up front, tube K-member, tubs in
the back for larger 14.5x27 tires and new high compression 302 that is
currently looking like 535 HP on the simulator. Oh, and hopefully some paint
if I can find the time!
13 Dec 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Dec 12, Teddy Chen wrote:
> i haven't noticed any conversation about the 3-link setup on this list.
> according to Mustang Performance Handbook 2 (by William Mathis), Baer Racing
> had a 3-link setup in its World Challenge cars which worked very well.
Yup- the upper link runs forward, is about 28" long, is offset to the left of
the centerline of the car by some 4", and required a nontrivial amount of
belly pan surgery to acommodate it. They're running a 9", so welding the
bracketry onto the center section was easy.
> supposedly they had created a bolt-in 3-link setup, and there was a photo
> of that. i'm curious about the bolt-in setup, and where they
> attached the third link. it looked like the third link was attached to
> the passenger side upper control arm mount, but i don't know where it
> was attached on the rear end.
It picked off the left-side center section "ear", and extended _aft_ to
bracketry that bolted roughly where the fuel filter is in the stock car- right
in the intersection of the fuel tank and spare tire reliefs on the rear
package shelf belly metal. The link itself was very short, and the geometry
wasn't all that hot- and there is nothing really _structural_ to feed the
loads to. I don't think that that product ever saw any prduction, at least in
a bolt-on form. You need a cage to provide something to tie into back there
for this to work. The belly metal is *far* too flimsy for a bolt-on solution
to survive in severe use.
> doesn't the third link need to be mounted perpendicular to the axis of
> rotation of the axle?
Not necessarily. You can use some degree of asymmetry in the upper link to
help compensate for the innate asymmetry caused by the axle's torque reaction.
The link should ideally be parallel to the car's centerline, yes, but it can
be offset by a resonable amount laterally, in an effort to prevent the right
rear wheel from unweighting when on the throttle.
> i don't believe the function of the third link is to provide lateral
> location. with rod ends on it, it wouldn't do anything to locate the
> axle laterally. that's what the panhard rod is for.
Right. In these alternative geometries, _all_ lateral location of the axle is
provided by the Panhard bar. Which means that its attachment points need to be
up to the task...
>> [re:a arm rear suspension]
> i think that's doable. the tricky part is where to mount the other side
> to the chassis. you don't want to rip out the floorpan in the process.
> maybe the stock upper control arm mount? you'd have to weld it in better.
> would it be more or less stressed than in the stock 4-link setup?
You'd have a hard time packaging a long enough A-arm to really improve matters
materially by putting it in the upper arm location. Additionally, with this A-
arm style design in the upper position, you'd lock your roll center in up very
high, which I don't think you really want. Successful performance cars that
have used this arrangement have mounted the A arm in the *lower* position,
with the spherical bearing mounted below the axle center section, and the
outer arms mounted above the axle centerline.
Either way, setting up this type of suspension on a Fox is going to require
surgery. You'll also learn a lot about just how much bump travel you need at
the rear when that stuff you glom onto the top of the center section starts
trying to clearance its way throgh the belly metal back there...
A panhard is much easier to package, on a car that didn't come with upper
control arms in the outer position.
23 Dec 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
Has anybody else seen the anagram program out on the net? Inputting
"mustangcobra" and asking for 3 words made these 12 letters, 674 different
phrases are created.
Amoung the good ones, and some possible interpretations:
coat numb rags
goat numb scar
cars goat numb
cuts grab moan
curs bang moat (although curs would be better applied to chevies...)
cats grub moan (what you find in your car after its been stored in a barn)
cram boat snug (seems more like those downsized Rivs...)
crab moat snug (sounds like you got a bad date into the back seat..)
atom curs bang (the solution for Chevy - nuke 'em)
atmos bang cur (same solution, but one chevy driver at a time)
brag cuts moan (battle scars?)
coats numb rag (joke about a suit that looked like Buick seatcovers?)
urban smog act (what happens when we all take off our converters...)
carts numb ago (old cars that don't run too well anymore)
organ acts bum (what happens when your 6-point is too tight)
gaunt scar mob (the guys on that other race team...)
numbs goat car (what you'll call it in the spring, after all the salt)
count bags arm (on the fly, the count missed your neck..)
mount scar bag (a realy ugly date you went too far with...)
bacon rams gut (when Kevin tries to climb in over your roll cage)
bacon mugs rat (those gov't tests told us not to eat it)
bacon mars gut (sure, if you eat enough of it...)
among scar but (drivers club of older rails, where you sat on the pumpkin)
combat gas urn (when the nitrous leaks)
combat run gas (when the nitrous works)
tumors bag can ("it's not a tumor")
25 Dec 1995
[email protected] (Robert Allen)
fordnatics
I and my dad installed my new Griffen rad. today in my '85 GT. This was our
third attempt. On attempt two we discoverd the core was warped so I sent the
rad. back to Griffen and the replaced it with one that was flat. The reason
this was a big deal for me is that the right side tank was bumping into the
hardline feeding the A/C condensor up front. The new rad. seems more neatly
made as well as flat, but I could be hallucinating. It cost me about $30 in
extra shipping costs since I sent it back to Griffen via UPS Blue label.
The install:
After attempt 1 I had purchased 1/4" and 3/8" thick rubber sheet in case I
needed to fabricate my own mount pads. I did use some 1/4" padding on the
lower mounts, which we re-bent a bit to account for the wider tanks. We
rebent the upper mounts and slotted the mounting holes in them to ensure the
right tank cleared the A/C lines. We just trimmed the existing rubber upper
pads to fit, and used some extra 1/4" rubber on the right side tank since it
seemed a bit lower than the left tank, and since I wanted to be SURE that the
rad would not rub against the A/C lines under track use. The rad is now quite
immobile in its rubber mounted cradle :-). With a couple of bends of the vice
grips to straighten the slightly bent upper cross rails (one can never be too
anal of course!) we put the fan shroud in place, secured the hoses, and filled
the rad with a 50/50 mix of antifreeze and distilled water. Oh yes, I emptied
and backflushed the old radiator before installing the new one so the engine
was nice and clean inside :-).
The power-up test:
I was surprised to note that the new rad didn't take any noticeable amount
more of coolant than the older, smaller radiator. I guess the oil cooler
takes up quite a bit of the left tank. I filled the rad, half filled the
overflow tank, and after checking for leaks on the pressurized system went for
a 35 mile ride. Indicated engine temp is perhaps slightly lower than it was
before, but on a hill and under load the temp guage (modified to be faster
reacting with a new voltage regulator) still rose nearly to the previously
normal high temp mark. The fascinating part came when I pulled in and parked.
With the engine running, the right tank is too hot to touch (as you'd expect).
But the left tank is only warm to the touch. The new radiator is such an
efficient heat sink that the coolant is cooled to just warm about 1/3-1/2 way
across the face of the radiator. I found this fascinating (so my life is
empty, sue me). It also explains whty the guage doesn't register a change:
the engine runs at a given temperature based on it's power output. Since the
sender is on the block it will register the same as what it did before. What
I expect however is that it will stay at that maximum level even under load,
and won't go any higher. You can just about use the radiator as a thermometer,
or perhaps a heat-capacitor -- the harder it's working the further across the
core it will be too hot to touch. Fascinating.
26 Dec 1995
[email protected]
On Dec 19, David Guard ([email protected]) wrote:
> Over the past few years I have seen a lot of info on modfications
> to reduce the anti-dive characteristics of the stock Mustang
> suspension geometry.
Well, actually, what most of the mods try to do is to _increase_ the anti-dive
(at the front) and the anti-squat (at the rear). The front end has essentially
zero anti-dive, and the rear suspension might as well have "pro-squat", or
perhaps more accurately "pro-jacking" when on the brakes- which leads to the
tail humping up into the air, even more than the nose is diving. The SN95s are
even worse than the Fox cars in this respect.
> I understand the modification to relocate the control arm pick
> up points. I think its pretty sweet that this can be done as well
> as using some different off-the-shelf parts (T-Bird arms) to also
> partially cure the camber gain (or lack thereof) problem.
Yup. Having a camber curve is _sweet_, and the effects of adding in some
camber gain on a car that you've gotten used to without it is just flat
freakin' _outstanding_.
> My question is: What's the trade off. The one thing I've learned
> in the area of suspension tweaking is, there's a cost for everything.
> I just don;t see the negative here.
> Is this some reason Ford (and others) build-in this dive characteristic
> intentionally ? Does this help keep the wankers out of the weeds, or ?
> If the aftermarket has fiqured it out and Ford has the parts, why
> do the new Mustangs still stand on their noses under hard braking ?
I think that the basic reason for all the fore-aft silliness that's built into
the suspension lies in Ford's NVH (Noise-Vibration-Harshness) requirements,
epsecially now that the SN95s are trying once again to become T-birds.
Antidive in its pure form certainly aids in controllability at the limit, as
does anti-jacking at the rear. Antisquat helps hook the car up on the
throttle, and it's hard to say anything bad about that. But the tradeoff is
that when you use geometric antidive, you are forcing the load to be
transferred through the suspension bushings rather than through the springs-
so there can be a *noticeable* increase in harshness when hard on the brakes
or hard on the throttle, and Joe and Mary Sixpack return cars and call them
lemons when that happens.
Realistically, the limit seems to be running about 50% antidive up front, or
the suspension will really bind up and hammer the car when on the brakes. Up
front, running geometric antidive will lead to a wheelbase/caster change in
bump, so you might will get a different steering feel as a result- you'll get
more caster in bump, which is kind of interesting. On the Fox 4-link rear
suspension, geometric antisquat will give you roll oversteer, which is also an
interesting sensation- maybe too interesting for Ford Legal.
I just recently changed over to the Griggs Racing all-out front K-
member/coilover/tubular control arm setup, with the 1" engine setback, major
relocation of the front roll center, about 30% antidive, and about a 1.5"
track increase. I got a front roll center 2.5" above the surface, a camber
curve that shows about .5deg gain per inch of bump, and about a 1" wheelbase
increase. Much to my astonishment, the car got _smoother_ and more supple.
Why? Well, taking over 20lb per front corner in unsprung weight and leaving it
in the garage certainly didn't hurt. 2deg additional caster didn't hurt,
either. But basically, the car was so harsh from running granitic springs
trying to make semi-factory geometries work on the track that adding in
antidive on top of a more supple basic setup was a *massive* net win.
I like having that much antidive, and there's something quite soulful about
being able to really haul the car down on the brakes without losing sight of
the track ahead as the nose drops. The car stays nicely flat, and there's no
noticeable bind or hammering. Hey, this combination was good for over 2
seconds a lap on my times at our last track event...
I think that adding in geometric antidive up front is a *win*. I don't like it
in the rear for my roadracing application, so I run zero geometric antisquat
(neutral rear steer) and get the extra hookup I need from _torque reaction_
antisquat via the Griggs Torque Arm.
What the heck- go after it. Replacement K-frames aren't that hard to come by!
Or you can call up Griggs and they'll ship you one set up to your specs, like
they did for me- then it's just a plug and chug.
It makes it a completely different car, but nobody will ever believe that
until they try it for themselves...
28 Dec 1995
Robert McCarthy <[email protected]>
fordnatics
> I was wondering if any Mustang owners out there are having these problems:
> First of all, I get a creaking sound when I turn the steering
> wheel. The creaking is quite loud when I turn the wheel left, or if the
> car is not moving or moving at slow speeds. It didn't used to be as loud,
> nor did the noises occur everytime I turned the wheel, but now it seems to
> be quite consistent.
My '94 GT had that creak and still has a bit of it. It is the steering rack
shifting slightly on the mounting bolts/bushings. The rack is bolted on to
the chassis with long bolts that apparently can shift around a bit and creak.
I was paranoid about something coming loose but all was very tight. I
reduced the creak quite a bit by undoing one nut at a time and smearing a bit
of white lithium grease under the nut and washer.
The noise on mine suddenly showed up at about 11k miles, never heard it
before.
No clutch or transmission noise, just a bit of rattle from the roller rockers
when starting from cold.
28 Dec 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Dec 28, Dave Lampert [[email protected]] wrote:
> >tradeoff is that when you use geometric antidive, you are forcing the
> >load to be transferred through the suspension bushings rather than
> >through the springs- so there can be a *noticeable* increase in
> >harshness when hard on the brakes or hard on the throttle,
>
> Scott, are you going to write a new chapter for BTTP your brand new
> front end (and include more anti-dive discussion)? Or did I miss it in
> there.
A sizeable chunk of it is already written- but it's not going into the
version that I give away for free. It'll go into the long rumored Real
Illustrated Paper Version, real soon now.
> Maybe I gotta go get my Mathis book? Does the new Griggs front end
> setup still use the Mcpherson three point type setup, or did it go to
> a different setup, like double a-arms?
Nope- it's a regular old strut suspension. What makes it special are a) the
masses of the parts, b) where the springs load acts (and thus the spring's
motion ratio), and most importantly c) the axis of the front control arm
pivots. Mathis gets into some of the important stuff, but in his book he
doesn't really go far enough. He addresses antidive/antisquat by basically
saying "some is good, but too much is bad". He does include some very nice
drawings, lifted from Gillespie's text on chassis dynamics, but doesn't really
explain either the meaurement techniques or any sort of metric on how far you
should really take things. Sigh...
There aren't a lot of mass market books that really delve into antidive with
any sort of conviction. Maybe that's why I'm working hard on the front end
section of BTPP- there has to be some unique value added to make people part
with their money for yet another Mustang book...
> Another Question, are you referring to Ford using geometric anti dive,
> or the aftermarket /Mathis/Griggs type setups using Geometric
> antidive? How/why does this method transfer load through the bushings,
> vs springs.
Think about it. 100% antidive occurs when the front suspension's instant
center (in plan view) lays exactly on the projection of the line between the
contact patch of the front tires and the CG height at the rear contact patch
centerline. In that case, any deceleration caused by the action of the front
contact patches has exactly *zero* effect on the front suspension's degree of
compression or extension. Why? The weight transfer due to the nonzero CG
height has no leverage to act on the spring. The car's mass (acting through
the CG) is trying to lever on the bushings *exactly parallel* to their axis,
so no motion can happen. Motion can only happen in reaction to loads that have
some component perpendicular to that axis, right? And we just designed all
those perpendicular components out, at least for braking. So the spring's load
doesn't change. So the suspension *doesn't move*.
The problem with this is that you reply upon the suspension having some
compliance to adapt to road irregularities, and so on. In the case of 100%
antidive, when you're on the brakes, the full weight transfer due to the
deceleration is being applied to the tire contact patches with no spring to
suspend it, or damper to control it. Needless to say, the harshness of this
will be EXTREMELY detectable via the seat of your pants. In the case of 100%
antidive, to a first approximation the suspension is _solid_, with the only
compliance being the tire sidewalls, *when you are decelerating hard*. It can
be spongy as heck when you're driving along with no deceleration, but apply
the brakes and the resulting weight transfer essentially locks the suspension
up solid. Ditto that for excessive antisquat, and hard acceleration- too much
antisquat makes the rear suspension lock right up when you're hard on the
power, creating axle hop.
There's also the second-order effect of caster gain/wheelbase increase in bump
that is an inevitable result of geometric antisquat and antidive. If antidive
is present in the front suspension, going into bump makes the wheel move
forward. The more antidive, the more forward motion per increment of bump. The
problem with this is that the wheel really wants to move _backward_ when it
hits something, but the suspension is trying to constrain it to move in a
somewhat unnatural direction. Result? Harshness over choppy surfaces, even
when not braking. This is manageable if only small percentages of antidive are
used, but the effect is there- and is unavoidable.
> You refer (in BTPP) to the Griggs torque arm's impact in this area.
> Otherwise, I don't recall you having referred to _geometric_ antidive
> before. thanks!!!
It's important to separate geometric antidive/antisquat (due to the action of
the geometries of multibar trapezoidal linkages) and torque-reaction
antidive/antisquat (as created by the action of the Torque Arm, or
alternatively by floating the rear brake calipers on birdcages and feeding
their loads through separate linkages). The effects on the car are the same,
but the mechanism is different, and this difference provides the opportunity
to tune them separately- or even decouple them entirely.
The Herb Adams book and the Forbes Aird book (not to mention Milliken, the
suspension student's Bible) all go into some very clever suspensions that are
carefully designed to decouple the different reactions entirely, and feed them
to the tub via different mechanisms. A huge amount of work has been done by
our circletrack buddies, in the never-ending search for solutions to corner-
entry understeer and insufficient traction on the exit. We Mustang roadracers
can learn a great deal from the successful Saturday-night Modified driver's
oval track car.
Interesting that there's a *very* radical offset pavement supermodifed sitting
right there next to all the Mustangs up at Griggs Racing, no? Well, that and
the mid-engined GT2 Porsche 911 that's under construction...
31 Dec 1995
[email protected]
fordnatics
On Dec 30, Seth Mleziva wrote:
> I just bought a '96 Mustang, and since I'm the do-it-yourself
> type, I was looking through the manual choices.
> What is the PC/ED Manual, and what information is in it that makes it
> worth $160?
The other manuals are model-specific- they apply to the Mustang. Rightly or
wrongly, Ford has chosen to publish only one single powertrain/emissions
manual, and it covers every single powertrain they have, it infinite detail.
All of 'em. From the 7.3L diesel down to the little 1.6L fours, and everything
in between. Yours is in there somewhere, too.
That's one hell of a lot of information (the manual for the '93s was 1200
pages!) and is costs a lot of money. However, it is complete, authoritative,
and details every pinpoint diagnostic for every Ford powertrain.
If you want that info, you buy the Ford manual. If nothing else it'll make it
possible for you to answer questions on the list here... -skod
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Foxbody 1994 /part 4
Return to Foxbody Tech Index
Go to Foxbody 1996