eZ

Taking a look at the year one mustang from this page
http://www.yearone.com/Articles/tech3.asp?AID=43

If you look at this photo you can see that the really modified the rear frame to allow for a larger wheel. Im running the same rear suspension. Is it ok to remove the rear frame like that if using a 4-link?




[/align]

[IMG]local://upfiles/18218/AB29B3AF04C4407DB3F631464C135814.jpg[/IMG]

JMD

I imagine anything you do that removes a structure of the car will need to be replaced by something to keep stabilization.

66ckurt

these cars only have frame rails in front of the fire wall the rest is a unibody design. Theres a guy on here whos building a convert cruiser and he has tubbed out the rear you should see if you can get a hold of him

66JameStang

Ther above post by JMD was actually made by me... I assumed I was logged in

eZ

but by having a 4-link isnt the 9' connected basically to the forward part of the rear frame rails. maybe the dont see a need to have the rails across the back?


[/align]

cmanf

There is more to this than your seeing in this pict.
The IRS has its own frame kinda a structure. I used this car as a bench mark for my 66 coupe.
I saw flaws in the IRS design you pointing out for my setup, and went with mid eye leaf springs and traction master bars.
Soon to be adding the Maier racing adjustable pannard bar and the rear sway bar kits.

This is a awesome ride I've seen it in person several times, Hope to show it my tail light this year @ their event in Ga.
The guy that built my carb does and tunes all their rides I have matched or beat the HP of that ride.

There is a reason hard core guys are taking the IRS out and petting a 9" in.
Just my tequila feed ramblings on a friday night. But that is my NEMESIS.

eZ

What flaws did you see? I purcjased this same 4 link suspension.
We are talking about the suspension. nothing to do with HP
A 4-link still requires a 9' rear end. I dont understand what you are saying?

cmanf

Flaws was poor choice of wording. I dont care for the IRS set up in general for my car.
On a Vette I didnt care for it on a z3 i didnt care for it. Personal opinion handling great but seemed to act odd under hard acceleration.
They handle well i just like the rear swinging out feel when I drive hard.
Nothing wrong with it as i said flaws was a poor choice in describing my thoughts on rear suspension for my car.

In a round about half buzzed way that didnt interpolate well, the IRS has its own attribute's for frame stiffening where the missing part is gone in the pict.
I chose a diff route. Hope to get more of my hp planted to the ground. Thats what I meant by guys switching to the 9" from their cobras. Solid axle plants more power over the IRS from what I've read and checked into from racers that own the cobras.

Not poking at your setup they are sweet and trick for sure.
Just going with a front to rear design on my car and that was one of the things I looked at.

eZ

I had heard the 4-link was better under load. Im looking at building a 1/4 mile car as well which is why i went with this setup plus being able to put more rubber uner the rear is huge. the year one car is running 10' rims and still has traction problems. HP dont meant nothing till you are able to put it to the pavement.


[/align]

cmanf

Hey EZ,
LOL know I realize why you thought I was stupid earlier.
Your talking about 4 link!

That car now has IRS Pretty positive anyway, thats what I was focused on the dif between solid and IRS.
Yea 100% agree on 4 link.

A wild setup to look @ is 3 link looks insane! I' ve seen a few of those chevy guys running that on drag only cars.
They cut the rear off of the leafs behind the axle about 10 " the panard bar and front eyes is all that holds them in place,