Close



Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default Front steering geometry improvements with off the shelf parts and 4 lug

    I decided to start researching how to improve the front steering geometry while retaining four lug. There are tons of great wheels out there that are 4 lug and the cars that run them still deserve steering geometry benefits too.

    I recently read that the SVO spindle was actually sourced from the Lincoln Continental parts bin. The A arms are a one-off for the SVO and combined to show some great improvements, etc.

    The SVO rotor on the 87-93 spindle yields 5 lug stock trackwidth so it stands to reason the 87-93 rotor is valid for 4 lug on the lincoln/SVO spindle.

    All of the details on this is great historical stuff..... but let's consider what can be done from a practical perspective to improve our 4eyed 4 lug cars without going broke buying exotic kits, etc.

    We go through big modifications and swap to 5 lug for a list of reasons
    R1 more wheel options
    R2 better larger more modern brake options
    R3 improved ackerman
    R4 availability of long balljoints to correct the roll center without impacting bump travel
    R5 track width changes help improve both bump geometry and tire clearance
    R6 wheelbase changes to improve front/rear balance

    Wheel options -- a moot point if we are keeping our wheels and staying 4 lug

    So.... better brakes is always better.. large is relative and with some of the older 15" wheel designs the 11" rotors used in the 87-93 cars is about the limit. Any bigger is not going to work. More modern ..... sure - calipers and rotors are available today for the 87-93 setup.

    Ackerman - the improvement found with the SVO/continental spindle is reportedly nearly as night and day as our stock setup vs SN95

    balljoint things have to be addressed to make it fit. No big deal. longer balljoints? Not sure. Worth looking into
    [edit - standard low friction 94-04 balljoint can be used along with adapters - http://www.maximummotorsports.com/SV...pair-P444.aspx Rumor is they do, but it is unclear if they will fit with an X2 balljoint. Offset rack bushings or a bumpsteer kit may be desireable if going to X2 in order to keep bumpsteer in check while dropping the frontend by raising the spindle up away from the control arm.


    Track width differences on the SVO - afaik - are caused by A arm length and K member differences (not depth of the rotor hat like it was on the 93 cobra). Having had to fight to get -2 degrees of camber out of SN95 spindles with X2's on an 86, k member width and A arm length are things worth considering.

    In a quest for front/rear balance, some people go to a different A arm and K member for wheelbase reasons as well.

    For my use case with street cars:
    R1 - don't care
    R2 - moderate consideration
    R3 - big consideration
    R4 - big consideration, very desirable
    R5 - don't want any change
    R6 - no change desired. I should add I am hugely opposed to coilovers after having a strut tower fail in the mid-90's. Spring pockets and springs are preferred by me on the street

    I look forward to the discussions on this. The output may end up on my son's 86 and also on my Saleen.
    Last edited by erratic50; 10-04-2017 at 02:14 AM.
    -- James

    Favorite thing I’ve said that’s been requoted: “"40 year old beercan on wheels with too much motor"

    My four eyed foxes:
    "Trigger" - 86 Mustang GT - Black with red interior. 5.0 T5 built as Z. Original motor ~1/2 million miles. 18 yr daily, 10 a toy
    "Silver" - 85 Mustang Saleen 1985-006? (Lol) Rare 1E silver GT / charcoal interior. The car is a little bit of a mystery. Current project bought as a roller, tons of Saleen / Racecraft pedigree

    Also in the stable - my son’s car. 1986 Mustang GT Convertible. Black/Black/Black conversion. 93 leather. VM1 ECU. T5Z

    past foxes -
    1989 Mustang LX Sport 5.0 AOD white/tan black top. Once I ran this one down I caught a wife.
    Wife also had a 1987 Thunderbird Turbo Coupe in the 90's.

    I'm a four eyed pride supporter, are you? Become one today!
    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/payments.php

  2. #2
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    It should be noted that huge improvements are found with caster/camber plates or even just onion style camber plates. These work with both 4 and 5 lug setups.

    Personally I use camber bolts for camber adjustment. I dial in max caster by centering the struts in the opening then shoving them all the way back towards the windshield. This helps eliminate rubbing with more tire under the car too

  3. #3
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    X2 documentation says x2's will not work with 87-93 spindles. It says nothing about SVO/Lincoln spindles - worth looking into. Historical posts on FEP from work on an SVO says they will fit.
    Last edited by erratic50; 10-04-2017 at 02:15 AM.

  4. #4

    Default

    The svo used mark7 junk, also used in the continental and 87-88 tbirds/cougar. Mark7 had its own spindle and special balljoint. Not sure what makes it different. The cougar birds used 4 cyl/pre 86 gt stuff and strut spacing, with a different width kmember/arms depend on years.
    2 1986 cougars (both 4 eyed and 5.0)
    1 1987 cougar

  5. #5
    FEP Senior Member BMW Rider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    949

    Default

    If you don't have a copy the Mustang Performance Handbook 2, I suggest finding one. Lots of answers to your quest in there. A couple of points for your goals, 82-83 Lincoln Continental spindles improve ackerman, 90-93 Mustang tie rod ends improve bump steer.

  6. #6
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    14,206

    Default

    IMHO there is little to no benefit to using the SVO control arms. They are heavy, bulky, require unique springs, and ball joints are not replaceable without custom machine work. If you want the advantage of a longer control arm using stock parts, then the SN95 arm is generally the best option, otherwise purchase some Maximum Motorsports control arms, but remember you will have to convert to coil overs.

    IMHO the Ackerman improvements you are going for are fine, but in most cases, the only time you see a benefit is when you are turning into a parking space at the mall. Unless you are willing to set the chassis and suspension up to minimize your weight transfer when cornering at high speeds, then its the standard issue of the out side tire is carrying a disproportional amount of the weight and the inside tire is lightly loaded at best and in some cases with big sticky tires and enough power you will actually lift the inside front wheel. So at this point your Ackerman isn't worth the paper you did your calculations on IMHO. Now don't get me wrong, I don't disagree that improving Ackerman can be helpful and nothing wrong with going that direction. I know that for many years lots of people in racing didn't focus on Ackerman in many racer cars and thanks to guys like Ron Sutton, more people are paying close attention to it know. I wish you the best of luck and will follow along with your journey, just not total convinced that all the effort is worth the reward is all.

    Another point that I discussed with Jack Hidley was the benefit to going to SN95 arms, but using the 8" wheels rather than 9" up front. His opinion that convinced me is that having more rubber under the car is most often a better choice for handling than widening the track width, but using smaller tires. Obviously if you have the room to do both that is great, but generally without major fender modifications you can't fit 9" wheels up front with the SN95 length control arms. Yes, I know some swear it works, but in my experience you either end up with major rubbing or clearance issues and the whole Ricer Look with the tires sticking out well past the fender lips.

    Another point about the X2 ball joints, I know you are a fan, but IMHO they are junk compared to the OEM Ford low friction units. The X2 are extremely stiff and NOT low fricton at all! I know they alter the roll center on lowered cars, but I would deal with that in a better way again IMHO.

    I am also not a fan of camber bolts as I have mentioned before. I know you like them and have had no issues with them. I still don't trust using a smaller bolt or an offset shoulder bolt in a high stress application such as that. I generally have had no issues getting all the camber/caster I need by using the MM CC Plates and I have installed them on virtually every Fox I have ever owned.

    AFAIK you should be able to use a SVO spindle with the 87-93 V8 rotor and caliper without an issue. There are options out there for aftermarket brakes even using the 87-93 or SVO spindles, but they might be cost prohibitive.

    I am sure I missed something in your posts above that I was going to comment on, but I have lost my train of thought at this point. Remember none of my comments are attacks towards you, just my opinions and observations as I happy to see this type of discussion on FEP. Best of Luck!

    Oh! Second on the Mathis Mustang Handbook #2! I have both volumes and there is a ton of information in both books. Unfortunately time and progress has made some of it moot and some of the information in the books is inaccurate for several reasons, but they are still a great resources for these types of modifications.
    Last edited by wraithracing; 10-04-2017 at 01:14 PM.
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Stalled RestoModification
    1984 SVO Still Waiting Restoration
    1986 GT Under going Wide Body Conversion Currently

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Stalled in TX
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  7. #7
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    The thought was SVO/Lincoln spindles on stock foxbody or some other similar form of A-arm.

    i only talk about camber bolts because I couldn't get enough camber without them. Now I'm at max caster and -2 camber and have room for -2 more!

    x2's have their disadvantages and advantages too. Personally I haven't experienced a dialed in fox with low friction sn95 balljoints, only stock or X2's. But I have nothing but positive things to say about the way my current setup handles.

    Now my goal is to meet or exceed it and keep a 4 lug setup.

    The purpose of the thread is to identify stock-ish parts that retain 4 lug and have exceptional street and light track manners.

  8. #8
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Thanks for the lengthy reply Trey. The thread seems to be headed towards rtfm now though. I don't think that was the intent of my post or your reply.

    Most of us are all well read on topics like foxbody suspension. My m idea with the thread was to re-deliberate on conservative but effective modifications.

    My Saleen is 4 lug and now that I have the period correct wheels my intention is to see that it stays that way. I know 4 lug is a big deal to many others also. But that doesn't mean those with 4 lug want poor handling and braking and bad Ackerman. But the options other than this are rarely discussed and seem to be few.

    Too bad there isn't a 4 lug hub and rotor for the SN95 spindle. I would not have a reason to look for improvements via other stuff and a lot more guys would swap to SN95 spindles and brakes I am sure.

    As for alternatives to X2's, what are your thoughts Trey? A drop spindle instead to correct the roll center while keeping suspension bump? I'm out of ideas after that so I'm curious.

    I agree on the arm part of the discussion if I read it correctly. With mySN95 setup I know that I could fit a 9" wheel but not sure about that if I swapped to longer arms. Don't think so.
    Last edited by erratic50; 10-05-2017 at 10:03 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Rather than reinvent the wheel, this has all already been done.

    A great book by some fellas called Slot Car Mods put together a comprehensive handbook on how to exactly modify the whole car while using all factory parts.

    The book is out of print, but if you ask, I may know a guy...I also own the car the book was based on, which was also another Omaha based car at one time.

    I am pretty sure Trey and a few others know the book I am referring to.
    Last edited by Nation; 10-08-2017 at 10:20 PM.
    1981 Mustang Coupe - 5.0/5-speed from Indiana, at the body shop getting a little love...still...
    1982 Mustang Coupe - One of the first 10 log-booked American Sedan (A/S) cars built in the early 1990's. Topeka World Challenge Top 10 finisher, 1993 and 1994. Under-going retestification.
    1982 Mustang GT - Something out of the ordinary.

  10. #10
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    14,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    As for alternatives to X2's, what are your thoughts Trey? A drop spindle instead to correct the roll center while keeping suspension bump? I'm out of ideas after that so I'm curious.

    I agree on the arm part of the discussion if I read it correctly. With mySN95 setup I know that I could fit a 9" wheel but not sure about that if I swapped to longer arms. Don't think so.
    I guess that is where we have had different experiences with lowering our cars. I personally don't feel that I have a major RC issue with my cars when lowering, but then again I don't generally lower more than about 1.5" so maybe that is the difference I am not sure. If you are wanting to lower more than 1.5" then I personally would seriously consider the Racecraft dropped spindles, but they don't offer a 79-93 style listed for street or road race duty and I am not aware of any other offerings. At that point, maybe the X2 ball joints are the only option when using the stock suspension, but again I don't normally drop my cars that low as the suspension is not designed properly for that type of lowering as it screws up the geometry. Custom parts may be the only option to truly correct and make work well, but I know that is not the direction you want to go with your car or this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nation View Post
    Rather than reinvent the wheel, this has all already been done.

    A great book by some fellas called Slot Car Mods put together a comprehensive handbook on how to exactly modify the whole car while using all factory parts.

    The book is out of print, but if you ask, I may know a guy...I also own the car the book was based on, which was also another Omaha based car at one time.

    I am pretty sure Trey and a few others know the book I am referring to.
    The book I believe you are referring to is the Mathis "Mustang Performance Handbook Volume #1 & 2" Volume #2 deals with the suspension and Slot Car Mustangs down around Houston did much of the fabrication and testing for/with Mathis way back in the 90's. Copies are available from time to time, but they can be expensive. Much of the information is more readily available now due to the internet, but also understand that some of the info in the book is just plain wrong.

    Name:  Mustang Performance Handbook.JPG
Views: 241
Size:  61.8 KB

    https://www.ebay.com/i/263057135029?chn=ps&dispItem=1
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Stalled RestoModification
    1984 SVO Still Waiting Restoration
    1986 GT Under going Wide Body Conversion Currently

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Stalled in TX
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  11. #11
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    14,206

    Default

    I just had a couple of thoughts about this.

    In regards to brakes, Baer Brakes used to offer a 12" front rotor brake setup for the 79-93 spindles. They cut and modified the OEM spindles and then used their custom hub and I believe PBR brakes. I don't see it offered on their site at this time, but I believe this combo was for the A Sedan class with SCCA many years ago as a 12" rotor was the maximum allowed size. You might consider that.

    Also, why not use a SN95 spindle and have either Baer or a machine shop modify the hub and rotor for the 4 lug pattern. Baer can probably do this without much issue, but so should any good machine shop. The hubs although "NON Serviceable" can be taken apart to remove the bearings. Then you could remove the 5 lugs, weld up the holes and redrill it for the 4 lug pattern, then reassemble with bearing and seals. The rotors could be drilled for the new 4 lug pattern alone and most likely be fine.

    Another option might be either a custom hub machined for the SN95 spindle, but most likely not cost effective. Also if running a 2 piece custom rotor like Wilwood, etc. you could have the hat drilled for the 4 lug and then use a 12" rotor to fit under the 16" wheels you plan to run. Again maybe not a cheap option, but it will give you the better brakes and hopefully all the suspension geometry improvements you want/need.
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Stalled RestoModification
    1984 SVO Still Waiting Restoration
    1986 GT Under going Wide Body Conversion Currently

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Stalled in TX
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  12. #12
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Yea, I dropped my car around 1.5" but I did it by X2's and caster/camber plates. I still run a stock front spring and have full bump and drop suspension travel available.

    Parts like these just kill me... http://www.racecraft.com/index.php?m...ndex&cPath=280 - they make a part for a car then say it's not intended for street or race. Then - praytell - what exactly IS it intended for? Separating suckers from their cash? Ridiculous!

    The X2's are supposed to allow use of a factory nonadjustable outer tierod end, so SN95 spindles without a bumpsteer kit. That's the theory I've heard.

    SHRUG - Not sure how well that part works as I'm running a MM bumpsteer kit for SN95 spindles on a foxbody also. Bumpsteer kit is really a nice piece, strongly recommend them.

  13. #13
    Moderator wraithracing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Grand Junction, CO/RR TX
    Posts
    14,206

    Default

    I have always dropped my cars with springs, so I am not sure about the X2 and how that works. I understand the theory, but I just have never used them as my understanding is the ball joint is not as good a quality internally as the OEM Ford low friction units. IMHO the low friction ball joints are work using due to the higher quality so I will give up some bump travel and suspension travel to keep them.

    Running the Maximum Motorsport CC Plates helps to regain some of the bump travel, so all in all the trade off is worth it in my experience.
    ​Trey

    "I Don't build it hoping for your approval! I built it because it meets mine!"

    "I've spent most of my money on Mustangs, racing, and women... the rest I just wasted."

    Mustangs Past: Too many to remember!
    Current Mustangs:
    1969 Mach 1
    1979 Pace Car now 5.0/5 speed
    1982 GT Stalled RestoModification
    1984 SVO Still Waiting Restoration
    1986 GT Under going Wide Body Conversion Currently

    Current Capris:
    1981 Capri Roller
    1981 Capri Black Magic Roller Basket Case
    1982 Capri RS 5.0/4spd T-top Full Restoration Stalled in TX
    1984 Capri RS T-top Roller
    1983-84 Gloy Racing Trans Am/IMSA Body Parts

  14. #14

    Default

    If you are really serious about this you should probably make an investment is some simulation software. With a little patience and practice you will be able to interchange parts (or design your own) and see how they actually effect YOUR suspension.

    Printed material is a good start for concepts and you may even be able to mimic what you read but in reality the chances of you hitting the right numbers with this method are slim. I am not saying what is printed is wrong by any means. What I am saying is that if you don't do the math yourself you will never know.

    There are to many variables, misunderstood concepts and tolerance stack-ups to deal with. Having a working suspension model on your screen that you can manipulate to see the bump curve changes, ackermann changes, wheel migration, anti-dive and anti-squat, body roll, yaw and other critical dynamics will go miles in saving you time and money on useless modifications. In fact, when I first started designing suspensions utilizing this method the software paid for itself a few times over in the first couple of builds because I saved so much money in mistakes. And there is more good news. All builds are a work in progress so, using the software, you can track your changes.

    You will become a better more accurate builder, better racer and performance driver, get more results for cheaper and truly know when you are reading misinformation for the application you are working on.

    Make no mistake. It takes time and an investment in yourself and your craft to become proficient. But when you think about it that is what you are doing anyway. You will have to take measurements carefully, maybe get some parts and pieces CMM'd, solve a few equations, get frustrated, pull a few hairs out and double check and recheck. But, everything you do will stay with you....forever. Your brain will thank you.

    There are a few SIM programs out there that are effective and not too expensive. I have been working in the private sector for quite a while and we write our own. When I wasn't I used this: http://performancetrends.com/SuspAnzr.htm

    For the price it is pretty effective.

    Good luck.
    Matthew
    Last edited by 86FOX4EYE; 10-09-2017 at 08:25 PM.

  15. #15
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Good thought process. There is a huge learning curve to this. I mostly want the baby, not the labor pains. I've been lucky to land with modifications that work well the first time around - especially in real world street situations.

    Many are happy if our cars suck less than they did. Lol

    I'm curious - What does simulation software say about street manners or driver feel? How are such things quantified? What about variables like tire grip? Surface temp, etc.

    Now for a sad but true statement. The very best modification I've ever made to a four eyed fox suspension -- dollar for dollar spent - bar none - is remove the rear sway bar on an 86 GT. No more rear suspension bind. Way more rear grip when turning, vastly reduced snap steer tendencies, etc. now the limited slip won't put you in a circle - what a concept!

    Handles better with 20 lbs less steel in the back of a front heavy car-- how stupid is that?!

  16. #16
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Looks like I derailed my own thread..... lol. We were talking front suspension and I brought up rear.

    Oh well - If anyone is compelled to share their tips and tricks -- like the rear sway bar delete -- those are the best kind! FREE They are part of the goal of the thread.

    If we can't do "free and good" let's try "inexpensive and good".

    The idea to redrill hubs and rotors to 4 lug is one I've considered. The trouble I see is avaiability of replacement parts.

    The modded spindle kits that were around might work on an SVO style spindle also. If so it might yield a 12" front brake

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    Good thought process. There is a huge learning curve to this. I mostly want the baby, not the labor pains. I've been lucky to land with modifications that work well the first time around - especially in real world street situations.

    Many are happy if our cars suck less than they did. Lol

    I'm curious - What does simulation software say about street manners or driver feel? How are such things quantified? What about variables like tire grip? Surface temp, etc.

    Now for a sad but true statement. The very best modification I've ever made to a four eyed fox suspension -- dollar for dollar spent - bar none - is remove the rear sway bar on an 86 GT. No more rear suspension bind. Way more rear grip when turning, vastly reduced snap steer tendencies, etc. now the limited slip won't put you in a circle - what a concept!

    Handles better with 20 lbs less steel in the back of a front heavy car-- how stupid is that?!
    Not sure what you mean by "street manners". If I am understanding your statement in that sentence correctly, then you are talking about set-up for the most part. Things such as spring rates, tire pressures, damper rates, tread compounds, static toe settings, static castor and camber are all set-up issues that are performed when the car is ready to be sorted. The SIM is more about getting the geometry correct for the suspension through its travel.

    When you mix and match suspension parts from different vehicles it can be very easy to lose your way. In my industry one of the rules of thumb I use is that if I make a change to one system I will affect 4 others. For instance, if I choose to change the track length by moving the lower ball joints forward I can potentially affect the toe, the bump curve, the ackermann, and the static and dynamic castor. The modification may affect other systems as well. If I have a good SIM model I can keep track of all of these changes at once and re-run the model. This is why I say it is easy to get lost by mixing and matching parts. If control arms are taken off of one system and put into another you may gain some good attributes but since the geometry change affects other systems care must be taken to understand what those affects are. If you don't then the outcome may not be what you want.

    I don't know why you would consider loosing the rear sway bar sad. From what you wrote it sounds like with your driving style the car was unpredictable in the rear. By removing the rear sway bar you have changed to roll rate of the rear suspension and to a degree de-coupled it a bit. This will allow for more body roll in the rear and in some cases better mechanical grip with the rear tires. It is hard to say because I don't know your set-up but the thing to watch now is your rear damper rates. If you have more body roll you will have more travel during cornering and if you have more travel you will need more control over it at high speed to keep from losing control. There is that pesky system affect thing again. At any rate (no pun intended) if it is working for you it is not sad. It is effective.

    Hope this helps
    Matthew

    PS. Please excuse the spelling and or grammar mistakes as I wrote this in a hurry on my lunch break.

  18. #18

    Default

    I removed a sway bar to replace it. On my non gt car it was pencil thin. Couldn't tell the difference. Added a big sway bar and could barely notice anything. Had several cars with no rear sway bar and didn't even kniw till I crawled under it.
    2 1986 cougars (both 4 eyed and 5.0)
    1 1987 cougar

  19. #19
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    I'm curious how noticeable the GT swaybar is when paired with the softer 4cyl rear springs. I might have to play with this now.

    interested in the experiences of others. Both with street cars and also in track scenarios.

    Are there other approaches to reduce rear bind without a panhard/watts while retaining rear swaybar?

  20. #20

    Default

    I have an '86 Mustang GT ragtop with bone stock suspension. Last weekend, erratic50 and I had the car up in the air to replace the u joints, and we decided to take off the rear sway bar. Previous to the modification, even touching the throttle on a corner >70 degrees, would result in blowing off the rear tires, and obnoxious over-steer, or even snap steer. Afterward, I am able to take 90 degree turns while hitting WOT halfway through, and barely hear a chirp from the rear tires. (I can also comfortably follow curves on the interstate at speed now lol). No clue if this helps in the rear sway bar debate, but my stance on it is this: If someone were to suggest reinstalling it on my car as it sits, I'd politely ask them to never threaten me like that again.

    With that out of the way, if anyone has any suggestions regarding erratic50's post I'd love to hear it as well. I have no intention of running anything but 10 holes on my car, but that doesn't mean I prefer to drive a car that turns like a $700 sedan, and stops as well as the energizer bunny.

  21. #21
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Amazing how books get mentioned and threads die here. I've spent over 35 years reading books and magazines..... not that they aren't good but opinions based upon experience are encouraged.

  22. #22
    FEP Super Member erratic50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    4,575

    Default

    Amazing how books get mentioned and threads die here. I've spent over 35 years reading books and magazines..... not that they aren't good but opinions based upon experience are encouraged.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •