Modded Mustang Forums banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

rear lower control arms with spherical end - only option is maximum motorsports?

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
P

paradigm

· Registered
Joined
·
288 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
I definitely need a set of rear lower control arms - the rear end hops about over bumps, and shifts side-side way too much for my liking. I cannot get on the throttle over rough pavement as the car loses traction easily. I am assuming rear lower control arms would help me?

Anyways, my understanding is I should be getting rear lower control arms with at least one spherical bushing. Is my only option maximum motorsports? Just trying to see what options I have.

Thanks
 
#2 ·
Discussion starter · #5 ·
#6 ·
Honestly man i have no idea lol i didnt put them on there. but if I'm in the throttle at all and there is a bump in the road, i slide. Not so much where its hard to handle but enough to make you let off the gas. hope this helps
 
Discussion starter · #7 ·
B.Heath said:
Honestly man i have no idea lol i didnt put them on there. but if I'm in the throttle at all and there is a bump in the road, i slide. Not so much where its hard to handle but enough to make you let off the gas. hope this helps
Click to expand...
Did you find the loss of traction got worse after installing the rear LCAs?
 
#10 ·
LCA's are not really going to do anything at all to stop lateral momement of the axle. For this, you need a PHB :yes

I am not a real fan of the spherical ball surrounded by the soft rubber bushings :no The idea is to allow as much freedom of twisting motion as possible and if the spherical ball is tight in its socket, I don't see the rubber doing much to reduce NVH. They cannot hurt NVH, but see very little benefit in them. I have a list of what I like in LCA's and why in the Un-Official Suspension Guide, but is a list of my opinion with some factual info, but nothing more.

ALL of those on my list will improve rear-axle suspension function, but some are geared more toward 1/4 mile and holding up with hard launches on sticky's.

Jazzer :)
 
#11 ·
Here's a picture of the stock ones with the MM ones next to them so you can see the differences. On the street, my rear end doesn't "wag" nearly as much around turns as it did with the stock arms that had just over 60k on them. This, like Jazzer said, is not the function of the LCA's, however it should stiffen up the feel of the side-to-side movement of the rear axle on the street. My car doesn't feel like its shaking its booty nearly as much as before - as in before, I'd go around a turn and the axle would articulate to its max, then sort of bounce back from that limit. I never lost traction that way, but it wasn't much fun. The axle still articulates, just not as obviously and not as scary.
Front-back articulation REALLY tightened up with these LCA's.
Image
 
#12 ·
UPR ProSeries. But I agree with Stal, a better set of tires will help more.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#13 ·
Weasel.... is that OEM LCA bent? If so, would explain some of the waggle :yes I suppose an LCA can help reduce it a bit, but more the resonsibility of the UCA's, but MUCH better done by a PHB.

Jazzer :)
 
Discussion starter · #14 ·
Jazzer The Cat said:
LCA's are not really going to do anything at all to stop lateral momement of the axle. For this, you need a PHB :yes

I am not a real fan of the spherical ball surrounded by the soft rubber bushings :no The idea is to allow as much freedom of twisting motion as possible and if the spherical ball is tight in its socket, I don't see the rubber doing much to reduce NVH. They cannot hurt NVH, but see very little benefit in them. I have a list of what I like in LCA's and why in the Un-Official Suspension Guide, but is a list of my opinion with some factual info, but nothing more.

ALL of those on my list will improve rear-axle suspension function, but some are geared more toward 1/4 mile and holding up with hard launches on sticky's.

Jazzer :)
Click to expand...
I absolutely want to do a PHB once funds permit, but for now I am going to do the rear LCAs first.

I just read your unofficial guide, some good tips there.

Any idea on how much more NVH a poly/spherical ended LCA introduces over a poly/poly LCA?

One of my larger concerns is NVH. Currently the car is pretty bad with NVH with my strange engineering struts, QA1 shocks and H&R SS springs. I was considering changing the struts/shocks to either bilstein HDs, koni yellows or tokico d-specs/illuminas.... not sure if that will help much though.
 
#15 ·
Based on your description, I don't see you hearing/feeling a spherical LCA much at all :no Either way, going poly/poly is going t be detrimental to cornering, to some degree, so would be a step back in da corners :(
 
#16 ·
paradigm said:
Did you find the loss of traction got worse after installing the rear LCAs?
Click to expand...
LCA wont change the geometry so traction cant increase due to that. The gain comes from stiffer arms and more solid bushing. I used to be able to feel the axle moving (wiggling) under the car with the stock arms. With the J&M arms that is gone. Traction is CONSISTANT! which will let you put more power to the ground.

Jazzer The Cat said:
I am not a real fan of the spherical ball surrounded by the soft rubber bushings :no The idea is to allow as much freedom of twisting motion as possible and if the spherical ball is tight in its socket, I don't see the rubber doing much to reduce NVH. They cannot hurt NVH, but see very little benefit in them. I have a list of what I like in LCA's and why in the Un-Official Suspension Guide, but is a list of my opinion with some factual info, but nothing more.

Jazzer :)
Click to expand...
I have to disagree with you here. Firstly the spherical ball is goin to allow more rotation that a cylinder style bushing. I could rotate mine a few degrees with minimal effort.

The rubber will certainly decrease NVH too. Rubber itself has dampening properties where as metal will just transfer the NVH. My controls only increased the NVH very slightly if at all.

Here are the number from J&Ms website.

The Testing:

We built a fixture which simulated a factory control arm mounting and tested how much force was needed to make the control arm articulate (twist) in those mounts and the results where astounding.

Poly-Ball Bushings:


5 degrees of total rotation = 26.1 foot/pounds of torque

7.5 degrees of total rotation = 35.8 foot/pounds of torque

10 degrees of total rotation = 41.7 foot/pounds of torque


Standard 2 piece setup using only 85 durometer bushings:


5 degrees of total rotation = 124.7 foot/pounds of torque

7.5 degrees of total rotation = 156.4 foot/pounds of torque

10 degrees of total rotation = not measurable with fixture. The 1/2" grade 8 bolt twisted in half at 9.2 degrees which was 210 foot/pounds of torque.
Click to expand...
 
#17 ·
Jazzer The Cat said:
Weasel.... is that OEM LCA bent? If so, would explain some of the waggle :yes I suppose an LCA can help reduce it a bit, but more the resonsibility of the UCA's, but MUCH better done by a PHB.

Jazzer :)
Click to expand...
No, that OEM one is in good working order. Its the giant mushy rubber bushings that suck major farm animal reproductive organs. You can see the holes drilled in them in front and behind the bolt hole on the torque box side of the car which means they shift front-to-back and side-to-side easily.
Keep in mind this is a street car only, and the MM poly bushings are new as well, I expect them to wear in a bit. This is also just my personal experiences/butt dyno, no scientific testing.

The problem I had and the OP may be having is on a sharp turn taken hard, the rear end of the car slides over top of the axle into the corner. When it reaches its limit of articulation it "bounces" off the rubber bushings and snaps back into place, but because everything is rubber, it bounces back and forth a time or two before the car straightens out of the turn. At least this is my interpretation of the awful feeling I had on some on-ramps before I got some new LCA's.

Jazzer The Cat said:
Based on your description, I don't see you hearing/feeling a spherical LCA much at all :no Either way, going poly/poly is going t be detrimental to cornering, to some degree, so would be a step back in da corners :(
Click to expand...
Absolutely no NVH increase when I installed my MM's.
 
#18 ·
straight line traction is also affected by lowering the car too much. your RLCA's come from the factory angle in an upward direction towards the front of the car. RLCA's parallel with the ground is the lowest you should ever want to go with the car. If they point upwards to the rear, the rear end is wanting to push up into the car instead of down towards the ground - dramatically affecting traction and creating additional wheel hop.
 
Discussion starter · #19 ·
cbjohnson9 said:
straight line traction is also affected by lowering the car too much. your RLCA's come from the factory angle in an upward direction towards the front of the car. RLCA's parallel with the ground is the lowest you should ever want to go with the car. If they point upwards to the rear, the rear end is wanting to push up into the car instead of down towards the ground - dramatically affecting traction and creating additional wheel hop.
Click to expand...
I will need to take a look at the angle of them - my car may be lowered too much with these H&R SS springs.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
About this Discussion
25 Replies
12 Participants
Last post:
Jazzer The Cat
Modded Mustang Forums
posts
6.3M
members
83K
Since
2005
A forum community dedicated to all Ford Mustang owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, racing, builds, modifications, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
96 - 04 Modular Mustangs 5.0 Mustangs New Members Introductions Classic Mustangs