Best "bang" for my buck suspension wise

[RodeoFlyer]

I have those lowers on my car. For the priceI had to try them (i didn't pay that much). They work well so far. I have had no binding,squeaking, or any other issues. If your getting control arms this is the only way I would go other than a poly/rod end combo.

This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!

[Rudiepoo1]

Thanks for the feedback RodeoFlyer. From the pictures they look comparable to others. I may just have to try these as well with the CHE adjustable upper.

[RodeoFlyer]

they're actually not comparable to others in design - price maybe. that poly-ball bushing allows the rear to articulate. all the others with straight poly sleeve bushings bind up.

[Rudiepoo1]

I should have been clear but I was referring to the looks as far as tubular and their patent pending poly/ball bushing really intrigues me. Bottom line is performance so again I'm keeping my eyes & ears on these before I make my decision. Anyone else running these that can chime in.

Thanks

[steelcomp]

ORIGINAL: Rudiepoo1

Anybody know anything about these lowers? Seems like a great idea just wondering about the performance and quality.
http://www.hotpart.com/index.php?p=show&id=130
Like others I'm looking into either CHEor BMR for my suspension needs.

Those look cool, but too much like a gimmick than actually solving the binding problem. If that outer bushing is the same urethane as all the other CA's, then it's not solving a thing. Plus, they're not adjustable. Using the upper to do your adjusting is going to be a pain.

[CrazyAl]

They claim the ball is extra-hard poly and the outer bushings are softer. It looks like it could work, but I'd prefer to stick with the rod-end type.

[RodeoFlyer]

they actually work quite well. for the cost they were worth trying. the guy that designed them is formerly from Maximum Motorsports

[F1Fan]

ORIGINAL: CrazyAl

They claim the ball is extra-hard poly and the outer bushings are softer. It looks like it could work, but I'd prefer to stick with the rod-end type.

Hi CrazyAl,

This is not to disagree with you so much as to question the validity of the claims of the people making these parts. There is no significant mechanical bind in the S197's 3-link rearsuspension. The maker of thesebushings is selling parts basedon hype and the serious bindingissues of theolder 4-link rear suspension Mustangs. I agree with you thatheim joints areprobably the best pure locating joints you can use if they have enoughtravel for the application andif you don't need to worry about other items like NVH, durability cost etc..

Have any of you guyspulled out the rear springs and removed the lower damper bolts and rear anti-roll bar clamp mountsto see if there is any mechanicalbinding of the rear axle?Idid and there isno mechanical bind, if you don't believe it try itand prove it to yourself. If there wereany significant binding due to themechanical design of the 3-lnk suspensionheim joints would bind too but the fact that you can happily use heim joints on all six ends of the S197's 3-linksuspension means that there is no mechanical bind issue so a plain bushing will not contribute to binding either though they do allowsome undesirable movement which heim joints obviously do not. The reason for the lack of control arm binding is in the S197's 3-link suspension design. The S197's UCA and LCA's are used only to control the axle movementup, down, forward and rearward with no lateral location load at all. All of the lateral location duties are handled by the Panhard bar. You can confirm this bylooking at the bolts where the links terminate on the axle and chassis. All of the bolts run parallel to one another which means that all of the links are free to move without binding within their range of travel even though thebolt angles will change adegree or twoas the body rolls there is still no binding.

HTH

[steelcomp]

Agreed...I think what they're referring to as "binding" is only the resistance to the slight twist of the poly bushing vs. a rod end's free movenent. There'sno mechanical binding as F1 said.
I also don't think I've ever seen different durometer values for polyeurethane. The ball is probably nylon or delrin or some other harder plastic, and the outers are the same poly as on other suspension parts. If it wasn't, there would be no benefit.

ORIGINAL: F1Fan

Hi CrazyAl,

This is not to disagree with you so much as to question the validity of the claims of the people making these parts. There is no significant mechanical bind in the S197's 3-link rearsuspension. The maker of thesebushings is selling parts basedon hype and the serious bindingissues of theolder 4-link rear suspension Mustangs. I agree with you thatheim joints areprobably the best pure locating joints you can use if they have enoughtravel for the application andif you don't need to worry about other items like NVH, durability cost etc..

Have any of you guyspulled out the rear springs and removed the lower damper bolts and rear anti-roll bar clamp mountsto see if there is any mechanicalbinding of the rear axle?Idid and there isno mechanical bind, if you don't believe it try itand prove it to yourself. If there wereany significant binding due to themechanical design of the 3-lnk suspensionheim joints would bind too but the fact that you can happily use heim joints on all six ends of the S197's 3-linksuspension means that there is no mechanical bind issue so a plain bushing will not contribute to binding either though they do allowsome undesirable movement which heim joints obviously do not. The reason for the lack of control arm binding is in the S197's 3-link suspension design. The S197's UCA and LCA's are used only to control the axle movementup, down, forward and rearward with no lateral location load at all. All of the lateral location duties are handled by the Panhard bar. You can confirm this bylooking at the bolts where the links terminate on the axle and chassis. All of the bolts run parallel to one another which means that all of the links are free to move without binding within their range of travel even though thebolt angles will change adegree or twoas the body rolls there is still no binding.

HTH

[F1Fan]

ORIGINAL: steelcomp

Agreed...I think what they're referring to as "binding" is only the resistance to the slight twist of the poly bushing vs. a rod end's free movenent. There'sno mechanical binding as F1 said.
I also don't think I've ever seen different durometer values for polyeurethane. The ball is probably nylon or delrin or some other harder plastic, and the outers are the same poly as on other suspension parts. If it wasn't, there would be no benefit.

Hi steelcomp,

PolyU comes in several different durometer values but the link page shows no specific numbers with regards to this producct. As far as I can tell there is no advantage to this bushing with a ball in the middle because the steel insert has to deform the same outer cylnder of bushing material as a one or two piece bushing would have to move. Now if the steel insert was allowed to move with full freedom and nt have to deform any poly along the wayby removing the poly from the path of the steel insert for the full range movement needed for the joint and ifyou could use adurable enough material for the ball and ball cups that they wouldbe reasonably durable I would say that this designcould have some merit by reducing NVH over a heim jointwhile alsoreducing the small inherent damping and recentering forces of a conventional steel sleeved cylndrical poly bushing. Butin the formas itis shown on the website,from an engineering point of view it's hype and offers no significant improvement over a standard poly bushing.Infact this designe maybe less reliable due to all of the sheer load being placed directlyonthe open joint of the two halves of the ball support. They could improve this sligtly by moulding thejointoffset by 1/2 the depth of one half of the outer parts so that there is not an opening in the poly where mot of the sheer load will goand the ball would have better support in the contol arm's tubular bushing end. Of course this is an obvious solution and I doubt that you could make it work in practical terms and offer the same amount of price advantage over a conventional lined rodend.

Cheers