Question's about better handling add on's - Forums at Modded Mustangs
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 49 Old November 10th, 2013, 12:38 PM Thread Starter
Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 94
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Question's about better handling add on's

I'm picking up an Eibach front sway and rear GT sway bar tomorrow along with a pr of KYB shocks . I'll be stopping by a u-pull on the way and have questions about the stock g load brace from the SN95 plus I need the rear lower shock mounts because the shocks are 5.0 .
Are the bolt holes on the Fox already there and is it worthwhile addition . Easy enough to pull two bolts and cheap since it's just a metal bar . Anyone used one on their 2.3 and if so how did it help . Difference between 2pt and 4pt braces ? The shocks on my 93 are way to soft for me .

I was wondering what quad shocks are . Saw a diagram and they look like they take the place of the rear upper control arms . I would think these are not a must have for a sock 2.3 because they look like they would control wheel hop if I'm reading the pic properly .

If anyone has a G Load brace and/or a pic of them mounted or can elaborate , please do .

Lastly , Torque arm the same as quad shocks ?? If they are and they will help I can look out for those too when I head out if them came stock on anything . There are usually a 2-3 or more 94up Mustangs in any yard .

Later on when I get a chance I'll be looking out for strut tower brace and sub-frame connectors .




Including a pic of the bar I'm speaking of .
purplexj is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 49 Old November 10th, 2013, 12:45 PM
BTM AutoSport
 
iRoush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Escondido, Ca
Posts: 2,710
           
iTrader: 4 reviews
Replacing a G-Load brace makes a huge difference in a corner carving standpoint. The stock one is stamped steel and flexes under cornering causing the alignment not to be even between the front tires. A good 2 point (steeda) or the best choice 4 Point (Maximum Motorsports) will fix this problem and keep the a-arms on an even plane keeping the camber curve the same between the front tires.

I have a 2 point due to the fact the 4 point doesn't fit over my longtubes:


Also keep the quad shocks in place if you have stock lower control arms in the rear. They do control wheel hop and unless you upgrade the LCA's you're going to experience wheel hop when the LCA's are under load.

Honestly, I'd hold off on buying a Strut tower brace, they really don't provide a lot of support, I'd spend that money on a nice set of Rear LCA's and as you mentioned subframe connectors. You'll notice a huge difference with those parts.

BTM AutoSport - Like us on Facebook! - Follow us on Instagram!
2016 SCCA National Champion
2016 SCCA CAM Challenge Champion
2016 SCCA ProSolo Champion
#99 '99 Roush Stage II - CAM-C
2016 Ford Mustang Ecoboost
iRoush is offline  
post #3 of 49 Old November 10th, 2013, 01:13 PM Thread Starter
Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 94
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Your talking 5.0 right ? I have a 4cyl LOL . The pic of the bar is the one that comes stock on the 94up so if I do have one it's stamped steel not tube with flat ends ? Something like that would be like $5 at the pick a part . I would think if it improved the SN95 it would improve my lowly car . I haven't looked but sure that I do not have the quad shock set up but would add it if it is indeed a better set up . When I added the STB and radiator support bars on my Olds the ride and handling were night and day . Wife left the wagon and took the Fox so I can't even go out and check now .

I see STB's and sob frame connectors on CL for forty bucks all the time . Just never got out and picked one up .

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:11 PM ----------

By the way iRoush thanks loads for the pic and info .
purplexj is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 49 Old November 10th, 2013, 03:06 PM
BTM AutoSport
 
iRoush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Escondido, Ca
Posts: 2,710
           
iTrader: 4 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplexj View Post
Your talking 5.0 right ? I have a 4cyl LOL . The pic of the bar is the one that comes stock on the 94up so if I do have one it's stamped steel not tube with flat ends ? Something like that would be like $5 at the pick a part . I would think if it improved the SN95 it would improve my lowly car . I haven't looked but sure that I do not have the quad shock set up but would add it if it is indeed a better set up . When I added the STB and radiator support bars on my Olds the ride and handling were night and day . Wife left the wagon and took the Fox so I can't even go out and check now .

I see STB's and sob frame connectors on CL for forty bucks all the time . Just never got out and picked one up .

---------- Post added at 01:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:11 PM ----------

By the way iRoush thanks loads for the pic and info .
I'm talking the fox/sn95 chassis in general. the tube with flat ends is stamped steel. it's not a good upgrade for your car but it IS better than nothing. If you're going to upgrade by a maximum motorsports 4-point brace.

4-Point K-Member Brace, 1982-93 Mustang Hardtop [MMKB4-1] : Maximum Motorsports, the Latemodel Mustang Performance Suspension Leader!

I would just skip the quad shocks and get yourself a nice set of lower control arms. I'm partial to maximum motorsports products because they are such high quality..

The strut towers do not see a lot of load on the fox/sn95 chassis. There are far better areas to add braces or other parts. I do not run a STB on my autocross car as there really is no need. Just extra weight mounted high.

BTM AutoSport - Like us on Facebook! - Follow us on Instagram!
2016 SCCA National Champion
2016 SCCA CAM Challenge Champion
2016 SCCA ProSolo Champion
#99 '99 Roush Stage II - CAM-C
2016 Ford Mustang Ecoboost
iRoush is offline  
post #5 of 49 Old November 10th, 2013, 03:47 PM Thread Starter
Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 94
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
I seem to recall someone saying the four pt does not fit with the 2.3 oil pan . I just looked at the lower control arms your talking about . Told my wife they look pricey . She asked about all the custom tube control arms on my Jeep as well as a lot of bracing . Oh yea I do spend that kind of money don't I . I want a Mustang that does not swash buckle all over the road like this one does . Switching lanes quickly can feel like it's going over a wake on a slow boat .

The stock SN95 brace would be a cheap addition . Hoping the sway bars , firmer/newer shocks and directional tires will cure multiple ills . Since I'm at the jy anyway I might as well try the bar untill I can get a better 2pt bar . I wont install the bar until after the rear sway and shocks to see if it makes any difference .
purplexj is offline  
post #6 of 49 Old November 11th, 2013, 09:50 PM
BTM AutoSport
 
iRoush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Escondido, Ca
Posts: 2,710
           
iTrader: 4 reviews
These aren't too bad of a price for what you're getting:

Heavy-Duty Mustang Rear Lower Control Arms, 1979-98 [MMRLCA-1] : Maximum Motorsports, the Latemodel Mustang Performance Suspension Leader!

Every little bit of suspension and bushing replacement you do will help tighten the feel of the car!

BTM AutoSport - Like us on Facebook! - Follow us on Instagram!
2016 SCCA National Champion
2016 SCCA CAM Challenge Champion
2016 SCCA ProSolo Champion
#99 '99 Roush Stage II - CAM-C
2016 Ford Mustang Ecoboost
iRoush is offline  
post #7 of 49 Old November 11th, 2013, 10:59 PM Thread Starter
Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 94
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Don't I know it . Everything and I mean everthing on the suspension the Jeep and Oldsmobile suspensions are new . $249 sounds pricey although my Jeeps arms are $279 adjustable uppers and $150 fixed lowers plus drop brackets . And a host of other backets bars and skid plates . Of course the Jeep does take a beating . Something to plan for after the sways and shocks are on .

Never got the factory 2pt G Load but did pick up the sway bars and shocks . Still need to get 5.0 lower shock mounts .
purplexj is offline  
post #8 of 49 Old November 13th, 2013, 03:05 PM Thread Starter
Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 94
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
I had picked up the sway bars but no hardware for the rear . It just uses bushings and mounts to the axle and bolts to the lower control arms ?
purplexj is offline  
post #9 of 49 Old November 13th, 2013, 07:37 PM
TG4
Wlcm 2 costco, I Love You
 
TG4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Fl
Posts: 124
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by purplexj View Post
I had picked up the sway bars but no hardware for the rear . It just uses bushings and mounts to the axle and bolts to the lower control arms ?

Yes it uses 4 bolts with tightening clips and it bolts through the holes in the LCAs. I put on a bar from a GT in my car about a month ago, took me about 1/2 an hour with the car on its wheels, but if it did it again it would take less than ten mins, but a lift would make this a 30 second job.

I can't find a signature I like.... I am too picky
TG4 is offline  
post #10 of 49 Old November 13th, 2013, 08:05 PM Thread Starter
Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 94
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Yes it uses 4 bolts with tightening clips and it bolts through the holes in the LCAs.
. Ain't got no tightening clips . I did not pull mine off another car , I bought it with the front bar which came complete . Looked into control arms or new poly bushings . Staying n/a 2.3 and won't be carving any canyons so no need to overboard . Even checked out those cheapo tubular control arms on ebay . They are like $145 and poly bushings for my stock arms about $80 but I won't be installing the bushings myself so have to factor in the cost . Complete arms are faster cheaper install . Don't know about the quality .
purplexj is offline  
post #11 of 49 Old November 17th, 2013, 08:41 PM
Hardcore Enthusiast
 
OHC230's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Napa Valley CA
Posts: 1,275
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Honestly, I'd hold off on buying a Strut tower brace, they really don't provide a lot of support, I'd spend that money on a nice set of Rear LCA's and as you mentioned subframe connectors. You'll notice a huge difference with those parts.



I very respectfully differ in opinion on this and I see the upper bracing as critical to overall function in a performance application and far more important if you run coil over shocks, where the load of the springs is no longer retained within the lower spring perches.


Later model Mustangs like your very "nice" looking New Edge, had substantial improvements made in terms of chassis stiffness over the earlier Fox models, especially in the front fender well, upper bearing plate areas, but Ford still spent the time and money to tool up for strut tower bracing on its performance models. That should raise some questions.


The strut towers on said Mustangs are subjected to enormous loads as the car transitions bumps and cornering loads. The strut also carries the loads that maintain the geometry of the steering knuckle, since we don’t carry an upper control arm on our cars.


I have finite modeled several chassis over the years and made many measurements using an active linear scale to measure deflection at different load points. The area in question has revealed movements as great as 2.75” under cornering loads generated by street tires, which states to me that Ford wasn't wasting their money by incorporating stiffening devices in this area on their performance models.


For the 2.3L Mustang, cutting and bending of a strut brace may be required for clearance.



In the image below, you can see a scale attached between the strut towers. This scale feeds data to a laptop which, in turn records changes to chassis geometry. This is truly an import area to consider.


OHC.



TVS Supercharged SVO 2.7L

528 HP
561 ft lb
OHC230 is offline  
post #12 of 49 Old November 17th, 2013, 10:26 PM Thread Starter
Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 94
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
I can agree with the need for a STB . Unibodies want to twist and flex . Obviously when new they will flex less . Bend and bend over the years and something has to give as they get more flexy . Bracing on any uni-body is going to give you a more firm comfortable and predictable ride . Tying front to rear will provide a much better ride as well as cornering since front and rear suspensions will work together . Unibody is cheaper to build and the lighter weight allows for better mpg and performance .
purplexj is offline  
post #13 of 49 Old November 18th, 2013, 03:15 PM
Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Arlington WA
Posts: 208
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHC230 View Post
[COLOR="Yellow"][B]In the image below, you can see a scale attached between the strut towers. This scale feeds data to a laptop which, in turn records changes to chassis geometry.
Is the data something you have available to share?
vristang is offline  
post #14 of 49 Old November 18th, 2013, 03:31 PM
TG4
Wlcm 2 costco, I Love You
 
TG4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Fl
Posts: 124
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by OHC230 View Post

The area in question has revealed movements as great as 2.75 under cornering loads generated by street tires[/B][/COLOR]


So by your studies what impact does the front strut tower design (our pseudo-Mcphearsons) have on performance in regards to positive camber during hard turns.

Or do we not turn hard enough in our cars to create positive camber in our cars?

Or does the positive camber not really effect grip as contact patch and traction aren't linear due to the laws of friction? Although positive camber would but more stress on the outside tires and possibly overload them, man grip is a confusing subject.

I can't find a signature I like.... I am too picky
TG4 is offline  
post #15 of 49 Old November 18th, 2013, 06:57 PM
Hardcore Enthusiast
 
Mikel89us's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Logansport, IN
Posts: 1,131
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Send a message via Yahoo to Mikel89us Send a message via Skype™ to Mikel89us
At stock geometry, static camber change actually gives a negative gain. Camber changes with up and down movement. However with the instability of the chassis. Bushings give, and chassis flex, will result in a positive camber change due to the side loads. If you want a good handling car, you want the tire flat on the road as much as possible. Tire flex causes a need for negative camber. As you put a side load on the tire it tries to rotate around the center causing the inside of the tire to come off the road. When you turn, you will get some body roll, and that gives you positive camber because as the car leans, the strut tower moves towards the contact patch center, causing the camber to change in the same amount of degrees as the body rolls. Plus you compress the suspension with the extra load, which causes some negative camber. You want to make the camber change to go negative a degree or two more than the body roll to keep the tire on the road like it needs to be.

1991 Mustang LX 2.3L 5 Speed convert
1989 Ranger 4X4 2.5L 5 Speed solid Dana 30 front axle, 4.5" suspension lift, 3" body. ( blown up....)
Entire turbo kit waiting to be used again.
Mikel89us is offline  
post #16 of 49 Old November 18th, 2013, 07:46 PM
TG4
Wlcm 2 costco, I Love You
 
TG4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Fl
Posts: 124
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Yeah I saw an amazing .gif on a website that illistrauted the camber gain and loss through our suspensions travel, but after searching for the website, I found out that the site is no more, and I can't find that .gif anywhere else.

So where is the pivot in the upper strut coming from, the bushings? I see the need for the bushings, as with out them the strut would bind and them eventually deform either itself or the mount from the repeated stresses of compressing-rebounding. The McPherson strut is supposed to be simpler than a double wishbone, but all I see is it making everything performance-wise much, much more complicated. I find it interesting that in the BTCC all cars must be on McPherson struts, as double-wishbones aren't allowed.

For a track car are those bushings worth stiffening to help stabilize the camber, or would they transfer too much stress into the frame? I just know that in stock form, our suspensions first gain camber to a point and then they reverse and start loosing camber. I wonder, though if we can even turn hard enough were it would become a problem (camber reversal).

I can't find a signature I like.... I am too picky
TG4 is offline  
post #17 of 49 Old November 18th, 2013, 11:42 PM
Hardcore Enthusiast
 
Mikel89us's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Logansport, IN
Posts: 1,131
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Send a message via Yahoo to Mikel89us Send a message via Skype™ to Mikel89us
Handling wise, you should definitely stiffen the strut bushings. As well as the control arm bushings. Thing of the ball joint as the pivot. With the contact patch being roughly 12-18 inches below the ball joint, some of the load goes across to the control arm bushings, and some of it goes the opposite direction to the strut bushing. That happens because the ball joint acts as the fulcrum for the force. The best way to stiffen it is a caster camber plate. Also solid or poly control arm bushings. The downside is if you do those then you have to stiffen the chassis, because the deflection OHC230 was talking about is magnified by the loss of absorption in the bushings.

1991 Mustang LX 2.3L 5 Speed convert
1989 Ranger 4X4 2.5L 5 Speed solid Dana 30 front axle, 4.5" suspension lift, 3" body. ( blown up....)
Entire turbo kit waiting to be used again.
Mikel89us is offline  
post #18 of 49 Old November 19th, 2013, 12:00 AM Thread Starter
Regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Bronx NY
Posts: 94
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
I started this thread and you guys are going way over my head . That's a good thing and I'm not voicing a complaint . Kudos to all of you have ability and drive . American education or ingenuity at its best .

I do get what your talking about , just need to read and think . Not just "what parts do I throw at the car " .
purplexj is offline  
post #19 of 49 Old November 19th, 2013, 12:35 PM
TG4
Wlcm 2 costco, I Love You
 
TG4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Fl
Posts: 124
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikel89us View Post
Handling wise, you should definitely stiffen the strut bushings. As well as the control arm bushings. Thing of the ball joint as the pivot. With the contact patch being roughly 12-18 inches below the ball joint, some of the load goes across to the control arm bushings, and some of it goes the opposite direction to the strut bushing. That happens because the ball joint acts as the fulcrum for the force. The best way to stiffen it is a caster camber plate. Also solid or poly control arm bushings. The downside is if you do those then you have to stiffen the chassis, because the deflection OHC230 was talking about is magnified by the loss of absorption in the bushings.
Ok, I have never thought of the pivot point as being under the strut, thanks.

I can't find a signature I like.... I am too picky
TG4 is offline  
post #20 of 49 Old November 19th, 2013, 02:07 PM
Hardcore Enthusiast
 
Mikel89us's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Logansport, IN
Posts: 1,131
 
iTrader: 0 reviews
Send a message via Yahoo to Mikel89us Send a message via Skype™ to Mikel89us
Quote:
Originally Posted by TG4 View Post
Ok, I have never thought of the pivot point as being under the strut, thanks.
Yea, most people don't think of it like that, but when you look at lateral g's it is a sideways push, and the "unmoving" point is the ball joint.

1991 Mustang LX 2.3L 5 Speed convert
1989 Ranger 4X4 2.5L 5 Speed solid Dana 30 front axle, 4.5" suspension lift, 3" body. ( blown up....)
Entire turbo kit waiting to be used again.
Mikel89us is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Forums at Modded Mustangs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome