Close



Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1

    Default Street Car Rear Suspension -- Less is More

    I wanted to share that last year I did a lot of reading about spring rates and sway bar rates on foxbody Mustangs. I've mentioned some of those facts in other threads several times.

    Basically the rear springs on the GT cars and TRX cars are so stiff that very similar if not lighter rates were used on the 1993 Cobra R. Meanwhile the front springs are softer than the R but the front sway bar is nearly the same. On a race car!

    Now let's look at the 1993 Cobra which is respected as a better riding car with good street car handling. It had less sway bar -- front and rear combined -- than the GT cars have only counting what's in front. The front springs are the same as our GTs, the rear springs are the same rate as a 4 cyl LX foxbody car.

    Meanwhile the 93 Cobras have 17x8 rims with 245/45/17 rubber under them and we are rolling on TRX or 15x7 rims from the factory with somewhere around a 225/60/15 with very stiff sidewalls.

    Conclusion? No wonder out cars ride so rough and still don't handle well on street, especially in inclimate weather.

    What is a proper spring vs swaybar suspension tuning balance? IMO basically the sway rate applied to the front is more than adequate for total swaybar front and rear. Further in a front heavy car a strong front and no rear will cause some diagonal load transfer -- inside out and rear to front. On the street this helps balance out the massive oversteer condition

    How should we get there *cheaply*?? If it's a street car, how does free sound? Just remove the four bolts on the rear swaybar and remove the swaybar. Take your car for a drive and see what I mean. Far better ride. Way stronger rear bite, far less oversteer tendency. The inside wheel in back no longer so easily comes unglued and causes the limited slip to blow the outside tire off too. Now it might even turn a corner under hard acceleration instead of going in a circle!

    Other things that I've found also help include:
    - softer 4 cyl LX rear springs
    -softer sidewall rear tires. Get an S or T or TR rated tire if you aren't going to drive mach 2.
    - wider rear tires. A 235/60/15 or 235/55/15 or there-abouts gives quite a bit more rear tire width on the ground
    - narrower front tires. A 215/65/15 is the same height as the 235/60 and adds a little ground clearance. It will just barely rub at steering lock due to height but it's not bad. You do not want a taller tire in rear than front as it transfers weight forward - keep this in mind.

    Why is it important? Because the stock setup causes massive suspension bind and leads to a horribly dangerous snap-steer condition in the rear.

    What basically cures the suspension bind problems and should allow some reintroduction of rear sway-bar or movement of sway from front to rear? A watts link or panhard bar

    I had a strut tower brace and subframe connectors for years. I removed the rear swaybar and added 4 cyl LX rear springs and went to a 1995 rearend and converted to 5 lug with ranger rotors up front and swapped to 17" rims with 245/45 tires all at once on my 1986GT. It was a huge difference but impossible to know why.

    I did one change at a time on my son's 1986 GT convertible. We started 100% stock and 100K miles. We added new shocks and struts. We put 235/60 S rated rear tires on factory 10 hole rims and 215/65/15 S rated in front. We added a strut tower brace and subframe connectors. The car still rode like a lumber wagon -- very hard in the tail -- but was better handling than before we started. It still didn't handle worth anything on the street in even the slightest hint of rain. Come winter or snow or ice -- this was even with 225/60/15 studded mud and snows and weight in the rear during winter last year.

    So enough! This past Sunday was time to settle this and put the theory into practice while (in theory) making the car ride better, handle better, and be much safer

    Our test - ease out on the clutch and floor it while turning left around a median.

    Before- the car violently slid entirely sideways. Once the inside tire spun at all the outside tire blew off also and massive oversteer was experienced.

    After - it went around the median at full throttle while staying in the inside lane

    It's a totally new car in terms of both ride and handling. This upgrade achieved simply by removing the rear sway bar!

    Today it was raining and the theoretical vastly improved predictable handling and traction are there as hoped. The car drove FAR better than before. Night and day better really.

    Will it make much difference on a track? It might depend upon dampeners, tires, etc, but in general I suspect it will. I may test it with my car. It is also lowered around 1.5" via X2's and caster/camber plates and LX springs in back so it is an extreme of less swaybar needed which may exaggerate the findings.

    It would be great if others would also test the rear swaybar removal improvement and post their results.

    Personally I'm sold and won't consider a rear swaybar again until my panhard is in place and my front swaybar is closer to a sane size.
    -- James

    86 Mustang GT - Black with red interior. 5.0 T5 built as Z. Original motor ~1/2 million miles. 18 yr daily, 7 a toy
    85 Mustang Saleen 1985-0006? (Lol) Planning Medium Canyon Red / Grey interior. Mystery. Current project roller, tons of Saleen pedigree

    Also in the stable - 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

    I'm a four eyed pride supporter, are you? Become one today!

  2. #2
    FEP Senior Member waggin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Mount Vernon, WA
    Posts
    560

    Default

    Going to have to read and re-read this to fully appreciate the results from what seems like a counter-intuitive approach. I love "less is more" solutions!
    '78 Fairmont Box Top w/Straight 6/3-spd Manual Everything
    '81 Zephyr Wagon 4/4-spd
    '84 Mustang SVO 5.0 Swapped semi-junker (I didn't do it!)
    MAF, GT-40, BBK Shorties

  3. #3

    Default

    I'm curious as to what Jack Hidley or Dave Zimmerman would say.

    subscribing
    84 Cougar, 88 HO with 700DP, Edelbrock RPM intake, 1.7 RRs, shorty's and SS exh, T-5, KC clutch, Hurst pro billet, line loc, 8.8, 4.10s, suspension mods....blah, blah,blah.

    71 Comet, 289, Liberty TL, 9", 6.00s, 11.9x @ 112.... blah, blah, blah.

  4. #4

    Default

    I am curious what anyone with knowledge has to say. And look forward to enjoying the comments.

  5. #5

    Default

    Duplicate post removed.
    Last edited by erratic50; 10-25-2017 at 10:55 PM.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post
    I am curious what anyone with knowledge has to say. And look forward to enjoying the comments.
    .....ECHO....echo.....LOL
    84 Cougar, 88 HO with 700DP, Edelbrock RPM intake, 1.7 RRs, shorty's and SS exh, T-5, KC clutch, Hurst pro billet, line loc, 8.8, 4.10s, suspension mods....blah, blah,blah.

    71 Comet, 289, Liberty TL, 9", 6.00s, 11.9x @ 112.... blah, blah, blah.

  7. #7

    Default

    If you can get it to quit rubbing, or just straight don't care about tire rub in front, is there any benefit to running taller tires in front than rear? You had said that running taller tires in back than front shifts even more weight forward and causes problems. Would taller tires in front shift weight back, and net a positive result?

  8. #8

    Default

    Shorter tires in back net slightly lower gear ratio.

    Should add effective positive caster - should play with Ackerman behavior slightly. Will change bump behavior mildly due shock and strut angle.

    toe is relative to where the tire makes contact so that could also be change there.
    Last edited by erratic50; 10-25-2017 at 10:57 PM.

  9. #9

    Default

    RIP thread...... it didn't turn into what I had hoped, but hopefully it helped someone else
    Last edited by erratic50; 10-19-2017 at 05:11 AM.

  10. #10

    Default

    Don't bury this yet. After replacing my spider gears today, I left the sway bar off and removed the dog bone weight. It got late in the day and started to rain so this will be tested when it dries up. This is on my 84 Cougar so results may vary.
    84 Cougar, 88 HO with 700DP, Edelbrock RPM intake, 1.7 RRs, shorty's and SS exh, T-5, KC clutch, Hurst pro billet, line loc, 8.8, 4.10s, suspension mods....blah, blah,blah.

    71 Comet, 289, Liberty TL, 9", 6.00s, 11.9x @ 112.... blah, blah, blah.

  11. #11
    FEP Member brianj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Raymond, New Hampshire
    Posts
    2,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    I think you are absolutely correct, but my car is a straight line build. I remove the front links and leave the rear in place. Removing the rear in my case usually points me towards the walls when the front lightens up. I'm tempted to try this on the street, though.
    1983 Mustang G.T. No-option stripper- I like strippers.
    5.0, GT40P heads, Comp Cams XE270HR-12 on 1.6 rockers, TFI spring kit, Weiand 174 blower, Holley 750 mechanical secondarys, Mishimoto radiator, Edelbrock street performer mechanical pump, BBK shortys, T-5 conversion, 8.8 rear, 3.73 gears, carbon fiber clutches, SS Machine lowers, Maximum Motorsport XL subframes, "B" springs.

  12. #12

    Default

    100% agree - something is needed to stabilize the car when the front sway is removed and the struts and shock are set 90/10 + 10/90 style. Very different use case than your average daily driver or occasional road course car.

    MM makes a rear stabilizer kit that I'd suggest over the factory bar in a drag car situation.

    Also if the inside front tire is getting lifted in hard cornering without the rear swaybar.
    http://www.maximummotorsports.com/Ad...2004-P546.aspx

    Its a rear subframe attachment design which avoids suspension bind tendencies present with the stock stuff.

    And actually depending upon how much bar you want there are cheaper options
    https://www.cjponyparts.com/steeda-a...yABEgLp_fD_BwE
    Last edited by erratic50; 10-25-2017 at 06:51 AM.

  13. #13

    Default

    Well got the chance to try this today. I have a good assortment of roads around here so I headed out. Main thing I noticed was how much better it rode. It handeled about the same on windind roads and on- ramps. I put this result to the fact that my car is lowered 1.5", has summer performance tires and a larger than stock front sway bar as well as sub-frame connectors which makes a well rounded package. The only thing that ruined the day was the fact that while testing the brake bias with the bar removed, I flat spotted the front tires. Now I have to switch them to the back and use the line-lok to make them round again....LOL. I cant leave them on due to the fact that I run staggered sizes. 225/50/16 and 255/50 /16. In a nutshell,there is a noticablely better ride quality and no difference in handling. My personal observations only.
    Last edited by quickshift; 10-25-2017 at 05:17 PM.
    84 Cougar, 88 HO with 700DP, Edelbrock RPM intake, 1.7 RRs, shorty's and SS exh, T-5, KC clutch, Hurst pro billet, line loc, 8.8, 4.10s, suspension mods....blah, blah,blah.

    71 Comet, 289, Liberty TL, 9", 6.00s, 11.9x @ 112.... blah, blah, blah.

  14. #14
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Basically, the whole cars ride is controlled by

    1. Chassis Ridgity in tons load per degree of twist
    2. Wheel diameter and its spring rate

    (Bigger than the stock 631 mm diameter to a max of 652mm on front, crash through and impact harshness over cement high way joints decreases;

    On the back, you can go up to 275/70 SR 16 XLT Explorer tires with 791 mm [31 inch tires] or the min tubbed 315 [12.5 inch width] equivalent.

    That improves rear ride out of sight. As Hissin Cobra how good the old BF G Comp T/A or Radial T/A 295/50/15's are on the highway! 676 mm or 26.6 unloaded tire height helps a lot with every inch. Real nice, and even better in a 10 second drag car!

    Tire aspect ratio reduction does not add harshness if the bushes and tire compound are softened, and certainly not if the total tire combination diameter goes upwards. Pretty soon, a Fox lookes like a Pro Streeter with 25.6" frotns and 31.1" rear tire heights, then you've gotta sort out how its gonna handle in an over steer drift to under steer push. The early Trans Am Boss Mustangs were set up this way.

    If time is spent finding the right kind of suspension bushes and spring /damper [shock absorber] rates, going down in aspect ratio [65-->60-->65-->55-->50-->45-->40-->35] and up in wheel diameter [15-->16--->17--->18--->19 or in metric, 390---415-->432--->457--->483] allows you to also play with overall tire diameter. Not every low aspact ratio tire makes the car feel like an 80's Porsche 911 Turbo or 928S on 55 series tires)


    3. The dynamic frequency of the suspension components, its bushed, the tires the spring damper rates are tuned for public roads, not the race track. The crtical frequency is able to be calculated, but a race track car has to have Chassis Ridgity, Wheel diameter and its spring rate and then an appropriate choice of spring/damper tuning. The sway bars (anit roll bars) operate to change roll center, and iteract with how the car "points", as all modern cars don't have neutral steer through the full range of front and rear bump and droop.

    4. The integration between the front and rear suspension.

    What you guys are describing has to be figured out as a subset of 1, 2, 3 or 4.

    The GM pavement engineers got it nailed in the post war era,

    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...3-Wheel-weight
    A book published in 1995 and now in its thirteenth printing, Race Car Vehicle Dynamics (RCVD)

    http://books.sae.org/r-146/

    ISBN-10: 1560915269
    ISBN-13: 9781560915263
    Pub. Date: 08/01/1995
    Publisher: Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.




    is the first in a series of books written by Bill and Doug Milliken (Author William F. Milliken, Jr. Edited Douglas L. Milliken). Those guys were influneced by air craft engineering, which dealt with all that kind stuff back in the Chaparral race car... putting air craft aerodynamics and landing gear practice into the race automobileand, eventually, the road car.

    and Ford followed suit after Pontiacs Bunkie Knudsen and Chevrolets Shinoda jumped ship to Ford in 1969 ish. GM Reasearch logged all the pavement types world wide, and then designed suspension to suit a selection of road types, and then did 'pannel rating" clinic checks with the public to figure out what kind of suspension induced noise, vibration and harshness influenced the buyer decision. The result was International Road Roughness.

    (You essentially have a proving ground with a mixture of corners and bumps, and you blind fold willing members of the public, and take them for a ride in your set up vehcile, and get them to real time comment and fill out a survey of where they thought the roughest, nastiest parts of the journey was in the survey vehicle)

    In terms of tires, there was a "new wrinkle" on the selection process, UTQG (Uniform Tire Quality Grading) is a standard defined by the DOT, so that a cost /benfit ratio could be set up. It didn't take long for GM to rush to radial tires....

    Some people don't like a race cars response to very intense bumps with high frequencey, like a constant barage of cement expansion joints. Some people have fillings and jelly bellies, and when a bump arrives, some parts of the human anatomy is okay with it, other parts, not so much. When you loose a filling or contact lense, a suspension system is too stiff for some, but if you don't have fillings, contact lenses, and a high body mass index, you might be okay with a car riding like a dray.

    Its the intense, high frequency bumps that stop us stiffining our cars up for a circuit race. There are technical terms for that.

  15. #15

    Default

    Good luck fitting a 31" tall tire without any rubbing without mini tubs.

    I ran 275/60's in the rear and 235/60 up front on ten holes. My cougar/tbird had way, way more room then a mustang would. I also ran 195/60's up front with the 275/60's still in the back. It was weird driving in snow, front tires compacted a groove in the snow and the rear would float around it giving it a sorta skittish feeling at higher speeds.

    With the 235/275 combo I could hit a 25mph clover leaf at 60+ with no issue jnder throttle. With the 195's up front the front end would start to slide. Whichever way the car was pointed when traction was gained was the direction the car was going. I tried to slide around a corner with this setup at 45mph, over corrected towards a ditch, then over corrected away from it pointing 90 left. As soon as the rear tires bit again, it went straight. Was kinda scared but funny after the fact.

    Btw, I was getting 28-30mpg with those gigantic tires at about 1600rpm doing 75+ mph.

    Really liked that setup. No-one ever noticed how much bigger the tires were unless I pointed it out.
    2 1986 cougars (both 4 eyed and 5.0)
    1 1987 cougar

  16. #16
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    1.Stiffening the suspension with subframe connectors and spring tower braces and the lower K member braces allows you to soften the spring rates and stiffen the dampers without crash through. You get tune the car for less body roll, so you don't need to dail in as much sway bar.

    2.Tire diameter increases allows softer damper rates, and harder spring settings

    3. CMV vibration form the whole package causes problesm. Reducing Noise, Vibration and Hardshness via stiffening the structure, bushes, insultation, seat springing and controlling wheel resession allows you to stiffen up the damper, anti roll bars and springs

    4. Using less un sprung weight hurts NVH, but sometimes helps front to rear balance. It depends on the circumstances. IRS, de Dion axles like the Alfar Romeo Alfetta and Alfetta GTV and Aston Martin DBS and DBS V8 and some later cars before the DB7 worked to allow much better spring damper control, better steering, better transitional responses between over steer and under steer. Going back to a 7.5" axle was done in the SVO Group A area, but that was a part supply issue, and if you have to go to an 8.8" for durablity, that can be worked around by finding lighter wheels, or just accepting the extra unsprung wight, and retuning the dampers, shocks and sway bars.

    The death of the 25 Aniversary Mustang 5.8 Twin Turbo was because the Fox Chassis needed 1994 to 2004 FOX 4 SN series stiffening, Federal Crash re-tuning, and body style stiffeness re-developments which have been done know by Jack Hidley or Dave Zimmerman's developments.

    Gary Heidt is an example of how great US suspension tuners know the craft. If the X shell Fords weren't so bad in the IFS and steering, Heidts wouldn't have any work.

    The Mustang II IFS and Jag based IRS that was planned by Ford as a Regular Poroduction Option. Ford Pintos and Mustang II donated there IFS to many car conversions, so development grew in that area. The IRS was a longer delay, because Ford found it too expensive. The Cobra IRS was the solution to the too expensive and heavy MN12 system. For the Heidts Independent Rear Suspension in 64.5-73 Classic Mustang's, thats the first key to realising that the Fox body guys have a handling base way ahead because a cheap IRS Cobra conversion is the best single thing you can do for street and race Fox, but it still requires 1, 2 and 3 to be optimised. The steering, IFS and the ablity to stiffen it means the Fox is way ahead of the old Falcon/Maveric/Granada X shell base the 64.5 to 73's use. Its a pretty car, but a bad basic design with its front track rods and rear mounted recirculating ball unit steering. So much has to change to get it ship shape...the Fox just needs a detail retune!

    Money is pumped into the early Stangs, but its less effectual per dollar than the goodness around for Foxes. The Fox IFS, rack and pinion sterring and its placemnt, and having a mass produced chassis to hang all the good gear on absolutley makes tuning what is there the first option.

    A well tuned live axle Fox is very much a first option rather than a badly tunned, cheaper IRS conversion, but with skill, and IRS is a good option.

    I'd punt for stiffening the structure first, and then looking at tuning it. Ackerman and bump steer and all that jazz, the kits are around to do that, but the rear end and lack of chassis siffness adds serious loosness to directional stability.

  17. #17

    Default

    "STREET car rear suspension" The above posts are an excellent source of info and go beyond the asked question. This would be very helpful in a track application.
    84 Cougar, 88 HO with 700DP, Edelbrock RPM intake, 1.7 RRs, shorty's and SS exh, T-5, KC clutch, Hurst pro billet, line loc, 8.8, 4.10s, suspension mods....blah, blah,blah.

    71 Comet, 289, Liberty TL, 9", 6.00s, 11.9x @ 112.... blah, blah, blah.

  18. #18

    Default

    I'm enjoying the comments. Thanks gang!

    So far we've confirmed some things I already knew and also the discussion highlighted a few things new -- this was one of my goals.

    If anything my general handling improved on both my 86 hatchback that's lowered and 5 lug converted and also on my son's 86 ragtop that's stiffened and has more tire but is not lowered. Ride quality is way better on both cars.

    street manners when turning corners under power way - way - better.

    Chassis stiffening - 1000x agree. Subframe connectors and strut tower brace are two major keys.

    Tire size/aspect - again agree.

    Unsprung weight - again agree.

    Spring rates vs sway rates vs dampening. Great conversation and agreed with the relationships vs tires, etc.

    lets stay on this less is more thing.. One little known fact - tribar rims are among some of the lightest 17" rims made. You have to spend quite a bit more to get lighter. Remember these were originally made for the CobraR so it should not be shocking in terms of news there, but is not often talked about from what I've observed.

    10 hole rims are again pretty light. They shroud airflow to the brakes a bit more than is desireable in repeat performance braking situations though. Turbine wheels, mesh, etc.... not sure where they are on weight. My 16x8 ARE with tires for my Saleen feel slightly lighter than my tribars, but they have way less rubber on them currently.


    In keeping with the theme - less is more - can anyone else name another part you can remove that improves street manners.

    (Drag Racing is another story entirely. There is ditch the front sway bar in about 30 seconds, maybe less)

  19. #19

    Default

    My wife said she'd remove the driver and the car would instantly have better manners.

    No respect, no respect I tell ya..... no respect at all.

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erratic50 View Post


    In keeping with the theme - less is more - can anyone else name another part you can remove that improves street manners.
    .....whoever is in the passenger seat?
    84 Cougar, 88 HO with 700DP, Edelbrock RPM intake, 1.7 RRs, shorty's and SS exh, T-5, KC clutch, Hurst pro billet, line loc, 8.8, 4.10s, suspension mods....blah, blah,blah.

    71 Comet, 289, Liberty TL, 9", 6.00s, 11.9x @ 112.... blah, blah, blah.

  21. #21

    Default

    I posted before i saw yours....lol
    84 Cougar, 88 HO with 700DP, Edelbrock RPM intake, 1.7 RRs, shorty's and SS exh, T-5, KC clutch, Hurst pro billet, line loc, 8.8, 4.10s, suspension mods....blah, blah,blah.

    71 Comet, 289, Liberty TL, 9", 6.00s, 11.9x @ 112.... blah, blah, blah.

  22. #22

    Default

    Hilarious!

  23. #23
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Standard Locost 7 cartoon.


    Guy in car says to well endowed blonde on side walk:



    "I'd go out with you, but you'd only hurt my Power to weight ratio....."


    In 1831 in London, Street cars and Drag cars were set up the same...




    Haystack, you are again the detail ace. Correcty-mo!

    I think things top out at 701 mm with the last Fox birds and 295/50 16's, or 27.6"

    Or unless you do this with some 28.5" tall slicks on a Fox Stang and Ja-kET.

    Like HissingCobra.


    The tire was the factory WS6 BE GoodRich TransAm Firebird tire option on the earlier wide wheels, my mate has them on the back of his 1980 TAFB 4.9 Turbo









    The last Fox birds had just enough room for a more drag type car

    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...6-drag-radials










    So yeah, Haystack, 31's aren't a goer, I was WRONG

    but the 295/50 tires are on the 16 x 8 XLT rim at 28" tall nominal with a little hammer time.


    Back to tires on the street. Aquaplane city with biggies on the back,

    with biggies on the back, the fronts then become littlies, and the car understears or plows.

    but adding 295/50 15's and certainly 295/50 16's gives you a great, cusioned ride, the normal extra suffle with live axles drops out, so high frequency low amplitude, or low frequency, high amplitute (lots of them in sucession, and small, or the one big tall LA pot hole "Shunt funters" you can't dodge....)

    big tires on the a$$ help out hugely with ride.

    The old LP400S Countach with 335/35 15's on the rear rode exceptionally well for a 2800 pound car. The Australian journos raved about the two Lambo cars they drove in the Gold Coast in 1982, and they had really bad Hume Highway bumps and maintenace patches like a Third World East Africa Safari.

    Same dynamic with a live axle Fox.

    I had plans to go right to TRX 245/45 415's at the front, and 280/45 415's at the back, on a down hand TIG welded up 16" x 7 to
    16.35 by 7 inch 415 x TR 175 front
    16.35 by 9 inch 415 x TR 225 rear
    conversion on mine back in 2015 before it got smashed and written off.

    Michelin have just produced some TRX tyres for the Euro TestaRossa 240/45VR415 TRX GT fronts,

    while the rare 280/45 VR 415 TRX for the Euro Ferrari 512 BB and Testarossa rears are on back order.

    25" fore and 26.25" aft ( 636 and 667 killumetrics) would be perfect for a car with a 308 pound aluminum head I6 engine up front and no 8.8" axle.


    Less is more...

  24. #24
    FEP Super Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    In terms of impact harshness, HissingCobra runs the air shock inserts, so he can keep the wheel arches off the tires when travelling four up for his 90 or was it 220 miles to the drag strip.


    I drive trucks. Ever since 1993. Back then, a truck had leaf springs, cross plies, split iron rims and drum brakes.
    Now they have
    AIR suspension,
    radials
    alloy tubless rims
    Air heart disc brakes
    and an ISRI "ejector seat"



    The real advance in our Foxes is in the sudden drop in getting a full electronic air bagged Lincoln LSC suspension. The whole swap is so much cheaper now, and the system was right up there with the Benz air bag suspension. You can "harden the heck up" an Air bag system on a sub 3200 pound car. The stuff is all just junk yard dawg fodder, but its really reliable and takes care of the balance issues because it expects more sway and is an augmenting system. You can still jack up the sway bars real hard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Hidley
    The Mark VII is a modified McPherson strut just like the SVO, but it has a different FCA to mount the air bag on. Here is a Mark VII front suspension:



    .....









  25. #25

    Default

    An enjoyable read as always!

Posting Permissions

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