[ModMustang97GT]

Originally Posted by Jazzer The Cat Huh? The whole point is to get rid of the bind created by the UCA's in an pre-S197 Stang. To do this, you need to remove them altogether. If one was to install only a PHB or WL and LEAVE the UCA's, what have you accomplished... nothing! You have just added time/expense/weight to you ride. You will STILL bind on axle articulation and will likely just add additional binding issues. The PHB will cause some lateral axle deflection and fight the UCA's or the Watts-Link will not be allowed to move freely as the UCA's will fight it as well. You need BOTH the PHB or WL AND torque-arm to be free of the UCA's. I am in 100% agreement about sub-frame connectors. Get them welded in place and have uppers installed if you can afford to do so. Jazzer

Not true my friend. The reason for the binding is the side to side movement of the upper control arms. Once they reach their limit, the tires lose traction and the suspension snaps back to center, which leads to unpredictable handling. By installing the panhard bar, you eliminate the side to side movement, leaving the LCA's and UCA's to 2 only 2 jobs instead of 3. Axle wind up and up down movement. The panhard bar stops all side to side loading on the UCA's so they can not bind anymore. With the panhard bar, you will be limiting the up and down movement untill you get rid of the UCA's. But you can't do that until you have the torque arm. Trust me on this, the panhard eliminates the side to side bind. I run this set up now, panhard and LCA's and UCA's and there is NO side to side bind like before. Its a half way step, but it does work, and its a hell of a lot cheaper than going straight for the torque arm.

[ReverendDexter]

Originally Posted by ModMustang97GT Not true my friend. The reason for the binding is the side to side movement of the upper control arms. Once they reach their limit, the tires lose traction and the suspension snaps back to center, which leads to unpredictable handling. By installing the panhard bar, you eliminate the side to side movement, leaving the LCA's and UCA's to 2 only 2 jobs instead of 3. Axle wind up and up down movement. The panhard bar stops all side to side loading on the UCA's so they can not bind anymore. With the panhard bar, you will be limiting the up and down movement untill you get rid of the UCA's. But you can't do that until you have the torque arm. Trust me on this, the panhard eliminates the side to side bind. I run this set up now, panhard and LCA's and UCA's and there is NO side to side bind like before. Its a half way step, but it does work, and its a hell of a lot cheaper than going straight for the torque arm.

The UCAs aren't there for 3 jobs, they're only there for 2: axle windup and lateral location. Up and down geometry is controlled by the LCAs (and rate controlled by the springs and shocks, obviously).

You are correct in that you can't entirely get rid of the UCAs with just a panhard bar, but you no longer need both, as the only thing you need them for at that point is to control axle wrap. That being the case, you can remove *one* of the UCAs, and free up the axle articulation.

[Jazzer The Cat]

Originally Posted by ModMustang97GT Not true my friend. The reason for the binding is the side to side movement of the upper control arms. Once they reach their limit, the tires lose traction and the suspension snaps back to center, which leads to unpredictable handling. By installing the panhard bar, you eliminate the side to side movement, leaving the LCA's and UCA's to 2 only 2 jobs instead of 3. Axle wind up and up down movement. The panhard bar stops all side to side loading on the UCA's so they can not bind anymore. With the panhard bar, you will be limiting the up and down movement untill you get rid of the UCA's. But you can't do that until you have the torque arm. Trust me on this, the panhard eliminates the side to side bind. I run this set up now, panhard and LCA's and UCA's and there is NO side to side bind like before. Its a half way step, but it does work, and its a hell of a lot cheaper than going straight for the torque arm.

You and I don't disagree about the UCA's binding up the axle, rather WHEN they bind.

If the body of car were to remain truly parallel with road surface in a high-speed turn, I just don't see much bind there (could be wrong). Problem is, the car will NOT remain truly parallel to ground as we need a little more give around town as well as, the HWY 1 twisties . The UCA's are dealing with lateral load AND axle articulation. One look on how they are designed and easy to see where the trouble will start. Without soft, sloppy bushings you would get just about no articulation without a fight. Now, I am NO suspension expert by any stretch, but am VERY good with the understanding of all things mechanical.

I have never driven a ride set-up the way you describe. I only know the rear suspension works best when it is free to move in the direction physics take it. Therefore, I would not set-up a ride the way you have as I don't see it solving the entire issue of UCA's.

Without any disrespect, I say as long as this works for you, cool

[Jazzer The Cat]

Originally Posted by ReverendDexter "...You are correct in that you can't entirely get rid of the UCAs with just a panhard bar, but you no longer need both, as the only thing you need them for at that point is to control axle wrap. That being the case, you can remove *one* of the UCAs, and free up the axle articulation.

Wouldn't this leave the axle to "twist" with support only being on one side?

Jazzer

[ReverendDexter]

Originally Posted by Jazzer The Cat Wouldn't this leave the axle to "twist" with support only being on one side? Jazzer

Twist which direction?

The 1 UCA trick I saw on Grigg's site while I was reading about their watts link.
"Can be installed independently of TorqueArm. Use with left upper arm removed for improved handling."
It's in the 6th item in the list on this page: Griggs Racing Products

[ModMustang97GT]

The removal of 1 UCA allows there to be easier up and down movement of the axle. And easier twisting, as the panhard bar has now made it much more difficult for it to articulate. The twisting of the axle is not as big a worry, as the twisting is prevented by the compression/expansion force on the control arm, not the twisting or bending force. The location of the axle is controlled by the UCA's ability to limit the lever action of the arm, and thus locate the axle better. The twisting and windup of the axle is controlled by the compression of the arm. I will draw a picture.

[ModMustang97GT]

Here is a drawing of the forces involved on your 4 link suspension. AS you can see. Your bushings do all the work. When the axle is being pulled left and right, the bushings are what is resisting that force. When you have a panhard bar, they do not need to do that job anymore. They are only for the axle wind up at that point. And as you can see, the axle wind up and tangential to the pumpkin and there for travels through the bushing, making the use of 2 almost entirely un-necessary as there is no give in that direction. the force is on a solid object so stiffness of the bushings is irrelivant, making 1 UCA sufficient. However, due to the angle of the UCA's in relation to the axle, there is still some play, however, not enough to REQUIRE 2 UCA's, and the benefits of having only 1 UCA outweigh the cons of not having them. This ofcourse is the reasoning for the torque arm. The torque arm gives an additional arm that is parallel to the LCA's, thus eliminating axle wind up. It also gives your car a better location for thrust to be applied and infact reduces your stopping distance as well. I hope this makes sense.

[ModMustang97GT]

Originally Posted by Jazzer The Cat You and I don't disagree about the UCA's binding up the axle, rather WHEN they bind. If the body of car were to remain truly parallel with road surface in a high-speed turn, I just don't see much bind there (could be wrong). Problem is, the car will NOT remain truly parallel to ground as we need a little more give around town as well as, the HWY 1 twisties . The UCA's are dealing with lateral load AND axle articulation. One look on how they are designed and easy to see where the trouble will start. Without soft, sloppy bushings you would get just about no articulation without a fight. Now, I am NO suspension expert by any stretch, but am VERY good with the understanding of all things mechanical. I have never driven a ride set-up the way you describe. I only know the rear suspension works best when it is free to move in the direction physics take it. Therefore, I would not set-up a ride the way you have as I don't see it solving the entire issue of UCA's. Without any disrespect, I say as long as this works for you, cool

You are correct that it doesn't allow me to get rid of the UCA's. However, it does make my lateral grip consistent and predictable. Obviously, that is worth it in it self. But as I said before, it is really just a half way step untill I get the torque arm.

[Jazzer The Cat]

Pretty cool stuff

I must be honest and would have thought that removing a single UCA would be problematic. I would expect the axle to move the drivers wheel forward in well forcing passenger wheel backwards in well (maybe enough to rub) due to un-equal support on both sides of pumpkin. Imagine if you were limited-slip rear and only drivers wheel were under torque?

As I said, I am no suspension expert, but would not have imagined it to work properly. Thanks for splainin' to me Lucy and always a good think to keep the mind open as seemed pretty to me at first.

Jazzer

[ModMustang97GT]

Yeah, I can understand the worry. Fortunately the LCA's take care of the issue. Between them and the shocks, they stay aligned as far as front to back, and the UCA is left only to maintain the twist. And to be honest, they recommend you have aftermarket LCA's before getting the panhard bar anyway. This increases the strength considerably. Ideally we should always go straight to the 5 link or torque arm set up, but sometimes we got to get creative with what we have.

[simon94]

sean hyland book sugests to stick with basics for street suspension. anti roll (sway bars 35mm front 25mm rear, shocks struts springs, subframes, lowers and uppers. he was saying to lower front 1 1/4 and 1 inch rear, i already have a simular stance with my weld pro tar skinies in front and big 15 by 10 rears, so i don't want to lower any more but i can't find any after market springs that aren't lowered. what spring rate should i get for street front and rears ?what do u guys think of Steeda Adjustable Rear Swaybar?-but i don't know what thickness it is, i guess i doesn't matter cause its adjustable?

[simon94]

what do u guys think of this

555-4410
Weight-Jackers w/ 3 Piece Bushings - '79-'98 $399.95


555-4411
Weight-Jackers w/ 3 Piece Bushings - '99-'04 $399.95


555-4412
Weight-Jackers w/ Spherical Bearing & 3 Piece Bushing - '79-'98 $449.45


555-4413
Weight-Jackers w/ Spherical Bearing & 3 Piece Bushing - '99-'04 $449.45


555-4414
Weight-Jackers w/ Spherical Bearing & Delrin Bushing - '79-'98 $449.95


555-4415
Weight-Jackers w/ Spherical Bearing & Delrin Bushing - '99-'04 $449.95





Product Details
Think all control arms are the same? Think again, Steeda has raised the standard for others to follow. This revolutionary new arm features a one-piece billet design that is far superior to the twisted and welded steel arms available today. The solid billet construction virtually eliminates deflection without sacrificing weight. Each arm weighs under 7 lbs. (Competitors arms weigh 30% more.)

The adjustable spring seat allows you to raise or lower the rear of your Mustang up to 1" with just the turn of a standard 1/2" ratchet. Plus, Steeda went the extra mile by using a roller bearing assembly on the spring seat to make adjustment even easier. Steeda's 3-pc. bushing design positively locates the axle for maximum traction and control without torque-box damaging suspension bind. Patent pending.

U.S. Design Patent 494,887 - U.S. Utility Patent Pending

Time to Install
Level of Experience
Tools Required











Benefits

More Traction
Better Handling
Adjust Ride Height
Fits Vehicle Model:
Ford Mustang V8, V6

Fits Model Year:
1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004



May We Recommend...

[simon94]

this steeda's weight jackers billet lower control arms

[Jazzer The Cat]

^ would you be wanting ANY increase in cornering performace running the above LCA's?

If you are, DON'T get those . Get one with a spherical end up front. It will actually help a bit in launching AND be MUCH better in the twisties .

Jazzer

[ModMustang97GT]

Jazzer is right. You are looking for binding issues with these. The bushings don't appear to be spherical. Steeda generally makes good stuff, but these appear to be drag pieces.

The adjustable sway bar from steeda does have a maximum stiffness. however, the adjustable stiffness is an important part of any high grade suspension. What makes it adjustable is how much you pre-load the sway bar. The more you load it, the stiffer the ride will be. But remember, the stiffer you make the back, the more tail happy you will be. This is good to a point, it makes up for the fact that our cars are really heavy in front and tend to under stear. But too much stifness is the rear will make the car hard to handle on the road, and hook like trash on the strip.

[HBK_2007]

good stuff here no doubt but all this talk about mustang suspension, i dont see IRS mentioned. any thoughts there?

[Jazzer The Cat]

What are your questions?

Maybe I can BS my way through that too

Jazzer

[ReverendDexter]

Originally Posted by HBK_2007 good stuff here no doubt but all this talk about mustang suspension, i dont see IRS mentioned. any thoughts there?

Honestly? It's crap.

Okay, that might be going too far. But first priority in its engineering was for it to bolt up in place of the straight axle, NOT to handle well.

Stock to stock, it's better than the 4-link, but the best handling mustangs on the planet use a straight axle.

[ModMustang97GT]

The only real benefits to the Independant is you don't have to worry about axle bind or horizontal position with an IRS. However, aside from getting all new bushings, axle and diff. Your kind of out of luck as far as things to do to it. You can stiffen it up, but truth be told. No one wants to spend their time on it because they would have to rebuild the whole back end of the car to make it work correctly. The bottom line is, they are cool for smooth ride and such on a stock mustang. But they are weaker, and at the peak of their performance are vastly out done by the solid axle. Not to mention the solid axle is lighter by like 400 pounds (don't quote me on the number).

If you think about it, in a true race car, or atleast a done out street monster like the ones me and jazzer are working on. Your suspension isn't moving much more than an inch or 2 up and down. And it will move that distance super fast, the benefits of the IRS are decent ones. But only in a car with a properly designed one. The IRS for an F1 car is very well designed. The IRS in the mustangs was designed to fit. Not to work or even work well. So, the bottom line is, go with the proven suspension, go with the solid. There are some die hard IRS fans. And the IRS can be competitive. But there is a lot of custom things that need to be done to make them work. And while I love my car, I have no desire to redesign the rear suspension by my self. Get new bushings and coil overs. Upgrade your axles, and your pretty much maxed as far as things to do. It sucks, but no one builds much for em, too rare and problematic.

[HBK_2007]

well at this point im after ride quality vs handling. i currently live on a dirt road and my stang is my dd so the smoother i can make the ride, the less my butt hurts, if u get what im saying