Modded Mustang Forums banner
181 - 200 of 450 Posts
so whats the difference between a 3 and 5 link?
3 link only has one upper control arm. 5 link has 2. Both run a panhard or watts link.

Steeda called their product a "5 link" to differentiate it from the stock 4-link setup, though usually you don't count the panhard/watts when you're counting "links".

The steeda setup had (effectively) much longer UCAs, that were attached further out than stock on the chassis side, and further out and back on the axle side. It was still triangulated, but much less so. For whatever reason, it didn't fare well in racing when compared to the various torque links, and the hard core crowd seem to shy away from them (and Steeda products in general).
 
so torque arm is still better
 
so torque arm is still better
Torque arm is better than the Steeda 5 link, yes.

Unfortunately, with EvM closing down, I'm not sure if anyone makes a decent 3-link anymore. This isn't to say they don't, just that I'm not sure of who makes 'em.

Personally, I was sold on their 3-link being better than a torque arm for the way that I use my car.
 
well once i can start riding my ninja (i ****ing snowed monday) ill get my car in the garage and check **** out. see how hard it would be to make my own 3 link
 
well once i can start riding my ninja (i ****ing snowed monday) ill get my car in the garage and check **** out. see how hard it would be to make my own 3 link
Go here: Corner-Carvers Forums - Powered by vBulletin

Don't worry about signing up or posting, just read. Near as I know, that's the BEST suspension forum on the 'net, and there's a LOT of good Mustang info on there.
 
aiight, any specific threads i should start with?
 
lol, that just happened to be the very first one i opened
 
Discussion starter · #189 ·
The only problem I would see with getting a 3 link would be where do you put the 3rd link? In the mustang there isn't as good a place for it as there is on the old school muscle cars. I'd be worried about how much fab work you would have to do.
 
The only problem I would see with getting a 3 link would be where do you put the 3rd link? In the mustang there isn't as good a place for it as there is on the old school muscle cars. I'd be worried about how much fab work you would have to do.
It actually wasn't that bad. The EvM tri-link setup had a brace that mounted to the UCA mount points on the axle side, then another that mounted between the UCA mounts on the chassis side. I believe that you may have had to drill a hole into the passenger cabin that was under the rear seat, but there was NO fab work involved with their setup.

Needless to say, I'm *really* frustrated they went out of business.
 
It actually wasn't that bad. The EvM tri-link setup had a brace that mounted to the UCA mount points on the axle side, then another that mounted between the UCA mounts on the chassis side. I believe that you may have had to drill a hole into the passenger cabin that was under the rear seat, but there was NO fab work involved with their setup.

Needless to say, I'm *really* frustrated they went out of business.
wouldnt happen to have a pic would u?
 
Discussion starter · #192 ·
Actually, I looked it up. The system looked ok. But I wondered about the strength of the mount locations. The chronic issue with our stangs is that the passenger cabin is used as a structural point, but its really just sheet metal. So the 3 link mounting to the passenger cabin creates an issue. The wheels are now transferring 50% of their power to the passenger cabin, which is a flimsy sheet metal box. Several people had their passenger cabin sheet metal ripped open by that tri-link set up. It was a promissing design, but it required some support from the chassis that it didn't have. There were lots of bracing packages for this system, but naturally. You can only bandage some things so much, its still broken. If you built a support cross beam, you could potentially set up a better 3 link. but you need the upper link to be equal in length to the bottom two. The bottom line is, there is not a very good way to implement the 3 link on our cars. The chassis doesn't support it. A 5 link would work, but its alot of parts and it depends on a good bassis, which would require more fabwork on your control arm mounts. I think that torque arm is pretty much the safest way to go and still be most efficient. Unless you get into some really fancy fab work.
 
Discussion starter · #193 ·
The best system would really be to have 2 LCA's that connected to the axle directly on the end of the arm. You would also require the LCA to be very strong, and the torque box to be re-inforced. A Cage, or really heavy duty subframe re-inforcement set up to strengthen the torque boxes enough. Then you would put on a watts link or pan hard bar, and it should work. But, you are still dealing with the main issue. The suspension set up initially is weak, and you need to overcome the insufficient links to the chassis one way or another. Be that a torque arm that is welded to your sub frames, a re-inforced torque box and beefed up 4 or 5 link. All the options are convoluted and round about, because the system we are trying to fix, was flawed to begin with.
 
Discussion starter · #194 ·
Bump Steer Drawing and explanation


Here is a drawing I recently made illustrating the use and purpose of the bump steer kit.

The first is the stock set up. The second is the lowered angles. As you can see the A arms and end-links are already at an angle. if you go over a bump, you will force them even more verticle, this will max out their range, and the car's front tires will toe inwards. Meaning, they will both turn in twords the car, if you happen to be turning at this time, you will lose the ability to turn atleast one of the tires.
The final picture is a lowered car with the bumpsteer kit. The kit as you can see is blue, and corrects the angle, putting the end links, back in parallel with the road, giving you desireable handling again. This doesn't seem to come in to play until you have a 1.5-2" inch drop. And at the 1.5" it, is only noticeable in pretty extreme suspension travel. Something you would be close to bottoming out on anyway. Hope this helps out.
 
WOW ... I deserve a cookie, I just read all 194 posts in here. My brain hurts. :yes

I learned a pile in here guys. Best thing I got is I'm glad suspension isn't on my list until next spring. I got a lot more researching to do. Full sfc's will be this summer tho.

Side-note: I think simon has 3/4 of his 88 posts in this thread. :D
 
a write up like this on s197's would be nice


by the way, griggs is Griggs Racing Products not - in it
I have to admit, I don't know much when it comes to S197 suspension, other that it was revised and has a panhard bar stock. With the popularity of the platform, though, parts are out there from all the usual companies and then some.
 
Discussion starter · #198 ·
Teh rev is right. In general there are more parts for the s197. They have a stronger frame that doesn't require re-inforcement from SFCs. And they have a panhard bar stock so, you can replace it with an adjustable piece if you plan on lowering the car much. Other than that, the set up is virtuall identical. The shocks and struts are all true macpherson, meaning they have the spring around the shock already. All of these things put together, make it a much easier platform to start with. My only complaint about it is the weight. Otherwise it is in general a better car. I might do some reading for you on the s197 and see what I find. In general its the same set up with the following few points excluded.

The chassis is stiff enough that it doesn't need re-inforcement from SFC's.

The rear already has a PHB, so the only real upgrade needed is an adjustable bar.

The shock/strut and spring set up is already the coil over type. So the only true benefit to the coil overs, is height adjustability. Unlink the sn95's and new edge that actually benefit by moving the contact point of the spring to the shock, making for greater leverage. In other words. you gain more in the sn95 and new edge's than height adjustability with coil overs. The s197's only gain height adjustability. (hope that makes sense).
 
did they change the suspension any from the '05-'09 to the '10+?
 
181 - 200 of 450 Posts