Dusty_Duster
MotoIQ Engineer
Send PM
Posts:340
Maryland, USA
 |
| 04-22-2012 11:55 AM |
|
Moving onto the rear. Here's the stock rear setup.
This is a closeup of the stock panhard bar and brace. There's nothing wrong with the bar, per se, other than it's lack of adjustability to recenter the axle. The brace is a chintzy piece of stamped, u-shaped steel.
Stock hardware:
New rear springs:
Evolution Performance developed this panhard brace in-house. It's much stronger than the stock one:
Close-up of the adjustability of the "new" Edelbrock panhard bar:
Rear suspension buttoned up:
Getting an alignment. I kept the toe-in stock, increased the caster a little (about 0.5 degrees), and increased the camber from the stock amount of -0.8 to -1.4.
All done!
Unfortunately, today's autocross got rained/snowed out by this freak Noreaster (which is why I'm sitting on my butt typing on intarweb forums). I have another autocross on Saturday. I've already noticed an improvement in intial turn-in, reduced body roll, and reduced understeer on Interstate entrance ramps taken at--ahem--enthusiastic speeds. |
|
|
|
|
Dusty_Duster
MotoIQ Engineer
Send PM
Posts:340
Maryland, USA
|
| 05-12-2012 07:53 AM |
|
I found out that the watts link I have will fit with my stock rear sway bar; it must be installed on a 4-post lift with the suspension loaded. After another couple of events, I'm going to install the watts link and see how much of a difference it makes. |
|
|
|
|
Dusty_Duster
MotoIQ Engineer
Send PM
Posts:340
Maryland, USA
|
| 07-01-2012 11:10 AM |
|
This picture shows how much less body roll I have with the suspension upgrades:
|
|
|
|
|
pistonhead
MotoIQ Newb
Send PM
Posts:78
|
| 07-12-2012 10:26 AM |
|
Looking great in that pic! |
|
|
|
|
will-go
MotoIQ Newb
Send PM
Posts:4
|
| 07-28-2012 11:52 AM |
|
Subscribed. Why Ultralights vs Sports? Seems like the Steeda Sports get all the love. Anything different on a "do-over"? |
|
|
|
|
Dusty_Duster
MotoIQ Engineer
Send PM
Posts:340
Maryland, USA
|
| 07-29-2012 05:58 AM |
|
Posted By Ian on 07-28-2012 01:52 PM
Subscribed. Why Ultralights vs Sports? Seems like the Steeda Sports get all the love. Anything different on a "do-over"?
The ultralites lower the car about half an inch more and are allegedly a little stiffer than the sports. However, after I installed them, someone told me the sports were stiffer. I suppose I should call Steeda and find out which ones are actually stiffer. Or maybe I just wanted bright blue springs... 
In other news, here's a video of my best run from an autocross I was at yesterday:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PbjB9UvAko |
|
|
|
|
will-go
MotoIQ Newb
Send PM
Posts:4
|
| 07-29-2012 09:26 AM |
|
Nice video! Some info from Steeda: "The Ultralites have a slightly softer front spring rate than the Sports. Very slightly less performance.
The drop is approximately 1/4" lower with the Ultralites". |
|
|
|
|
will-go
MotoIQ Newb
Send PM
Posts:4
|
| 07-29-2012 10:40 AM |
|
... and info from Sam Strano re Ultralights vs Sports: "There is some bad/misleading information floating around".
Sports are softer (despite some claims to the contrary) and not as low, they are the 1"/1.2" springs. Ultralites are a little stiffer, and a little lower, about 1/4" more at both ends of the car. I know that it's been posted that Ultralites are 195/175, and Sports are 200/175. The former is not accurate, the latter is. I ask you what would be the point of two springs so similar and only 5 lbs/in different? There is none. Ultralites are lower and are also stiffer (as they should be being lower). The way the springs are wound and some basic--and incorrect--figuring leads folks to those numbers which are not in all actuality the working rates. |
|
|
|
|
Dusty_Duster
MotoIQ Engineer
Send PM
Posts:340
Maryland, USA
|
| 10-09-2012 06:09 AM |
|
Ooooh, shiny... 
|
|
|
|
|
jesse
MotoIQ Newb
Send PM
Posts:11
|
| 10-22-2012 11:17 AM |
|
Nice, early Xmas! |
|
|
|
|
Dusty_Duster
MotoIQ Engineer
Send PM
Posts:340
Maryland, USA
|
| 11-19-2012 06:14 AM |
|
http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/id/2767/project-mustang-50-part-ii-controlling-body-roll-with-whiteline.aspx |
|
|
|
|
Dusty_Duster
MotoIQ Engineer
Send PM
Posts:340
Maryland, USA
|
|
stuntman
MotoIQ Newb
Send PM
Posts:30
|
| 01-03-2013 09:46 PM |
|
"Lowering this car more than about 1.5" compromises the suspension and steering geometry and requires new balljoints, control arms, etc. The minimum amount that the Variant 3s lower this car is 1.5", so I wouldn't be able to adjust ride height without spending more money on more parts."
I disagree, it's fine to lower a Mustang 1.5" or more. Our racecars are lower than that and my GF and codriver's cars are even lower and it does not compromise the geometry and 'require' new balljoints, control arms, etc...
What are the Steeda Ultralight spring rates?
Oh, and move that battery to the trunk ASAP! |
|
|
|
|
Dusty_Duster
MotoIQ Engineer
Send PM
Posts:340
Maryland, USA
|
| 01-04-2013 02:43 AM |
|
Really? Did you read my article about correcting the rear suspension geometry from just lowering the car by an inch? And I'm not even done yet; the pinion angle still needs to be adjusted.
What "race cars" are you referring to? Are they S197 Mustangs? Just because something "works" on the race track doesn't mean that it is ideal or that it would hold up to being driven 10,000 miles a year like my Mustang is.
Also, regardless of what you say, a Mustang lowered by that much *does* have compromised suspension and steering geometries. Any car lowered by that much would. |
|
|
|
|
Grant Borman
MotoIQ Grease Monkey
Send PM
Posts:108
|
| 01-04-2013 01:12 PM |
|
Dusty i believe he is talking about the #61 Mustang in this moto IQ article.
http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/id/2379/pfc-scores-win-at-daytona-with-johnson-and-roush-jr.aspx |
|
|
|
|
stuntman
MotoIQ Newb
Send PM
Posts:30
|
| 01-04-2013 01:47 PM |
|
Posted By Dusty Duster on 01-04-2013 04:43 AM
Really? Did you read my article about correcting the rear suspension geometry from just lowering the car by an inch? And I'm not even done yet; the pinion angle still needs to be adjusted.
What "race cars" are you referring to? Are they S197 Mustangs? Just because something "works" on the race track doesn't mean that it is ideal or that it would hold up to being driven 10,000 miles a year like my Mustang is.
Also, regardless of what you say, a Mustang lowered by that much *does* have compromised suspension and steering geometries. Any car lowered by that much would.
What article? what happens to steering and suspension geometries when lowering the car more than 1.5"?
|
|
|
|
|
Dusty_Duster
MotoIQ Engineer
Send PM
Posts:340
Maryland, USA
|
| 01-05-2013 05:45 AM |
|
The article i posted right before your post. It talks about some of the stuff necessary to correct the rear suspension geometry from only lowering the car by a little over an inch.
www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/id...steer.aspx
You should probably also take a look at this one, which explains what happens when you lower a car too much:
www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/ar...r-car.aspx
And this goes into roll centers, center of gravity, and the resulting roll couples:
www.motoiq.com/magazine_articles/id...enter.aspx
Some of the things necessary to correct the suspension after lowering the car by more than an inch and a half or so include:
- Taller ball joints to correct the front roll center
- Watts linkage or adjustable panhard bar mount to correct the rear roll center
- Adjustable front control arms to correct scrub radius
- Rear anti-squat geometry correction for the rear lower control arms
- Rear upper control arm correction to fix pinion angle of driveshaft
|
|
|
|
|
stuntman
MotoIQ Newb
Send PM
Posts:30
|
| 01-16-2013 08:58 PM |
|
There's more than one way to skin a cat. You can set up the same car 100 different ways and result in the same level of performance. Car setup is a very involved system where one change is not isolated but affects many other aspects of the car's performance/handling/setup.
Having said that, lowering a Mustang 1.5" is not the end of the world and it really dosn't have too many problems either. The roll centers are actually pretty good and have a good front to rear inclination. They are not "wrong" at a 1.5" lowered ride height and surely don't have to be 'corrected'. Sure you can raise the rear instant center and improve anti-squat, but you can also improve power-down with a softer rear spring. Roll understeer of the rear axle is a stabilizing effect which depending on the rest of the car's setup, could be a positive thing -especially at high speeds.
In your article, it stresses an issue with the axle not being centered when lowering a car. At a 3.5" ride height (minimum ride height in CTSCC -and lower than 1.5" than stock), the panhard rod is about parallel with the ground. At this point, the axle is as far left as it ever will be and actually has the least amount of axle shift in droop or compression due to being at the apex of its curve. When you installed your adjustable panhard rod, I'd bet you ended up pretty much the same length as stock. The axles really don't shift much but they will if you bend the weak stock panhard rod, then the axle shifts to the right a TON (i've bent a couple on street tires at the track). I highly recommend stronger aftermarket panhard rods. They don't have to be 'adjustable', just stronger.
3-link suspension and panhard bars are quite good on road courses, and the ease and quickness of adjusting the rear roll center is a pretty big strength. Watts links are overrated and an unnecessary expense. You can make a panhard bar work just as good for less. Sure you can make a Watts link work very well, but both setups have strengths and weaknesses. At the end of the day, it's just one path or another to go down to get to the same place.
0.02
|
|
|
|
|