You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
Just what do you expect from a torque arm that you can't get from the 3-link? Why do you think it might do [whatever] better?
Why not first start with a take-off 8.8" axle? A 7.5" T-lok is still a 7.5" axle with 7.5" axle shafts.
What is it about Hotchkis bars at $600 that might be "better" than GT take-offs? If you only get the rear one, how much is the handling expected to change? I would think you'd want to have better than just a vague idea of where you were going to end up, given any budgetary constraint at all.
Norm
Well I was trying to mimic a Griggs complete Rear autocross / open track setup for less money . One of the main features of the kit is the torque arm and the watts setup . koni coilovers are also included . I was just trying to work around this with budget changes .
GR40TT Rear Suspension Kit Contents:
TorqueArm Kit
TA Cover
GR40 Watts Link Kit
Koni 30 Series coil over shocks
Axle Bracket Kit
Shock Bracket Kit
315mm Shock Brackets
Adjustable Length Alum Rear Control Arms
Koni Rear Coil Over Kit w/Springs
Rear Anti-Roll Bar Kit
Price/$3999.50
As far as why a Torque Arm setup . I don't like the fact that the UCA is so short. The percent change during its travel is massive compared to a longer torque arm setup . This matters to me since I want a softer spring/ stiff sway bar setup . That is where the Torque Arm and the watts link comes in . The watts link has less side to side travel than a pan hard bar .
Hotchkins come in a set, adjustable 4way up front and 3way in the rear .
I am thinking I will need the GT takeoff 8.8 for the Torque arm to fit because it uses bolts on the lower pumpkin to bolt up . so back to the drawing board . ( and stay in budget . )
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members. Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
It's hard to tell by the pic or the description whats going on there . on the pic it must just be sitting between the two holes not bolted together . is the rear hole stock ? that is something to consider if it is what I think it is. I could also extend the uca and an adjustable Lcas another 1/2 inch and make the overall wheel base 1/2 inch longer . That is if everything else will allow that . I want the 555-4106 instead of the 4109 and save $10 .
I sent Steeda an email . now Ill just wait and see
Last edited by clintster77; 02-02-2009 at 12:51 AM.
It's hard to tell by the pic or the description whats going on there . on the pic it must just be sitting between the two holes not bolted together . is the rear hole stock ? that is something to consider if it is what I think it is. I could also extend the uca and an adjustable Lcas another 1/2 inch and make the overall wheel base 1/2 inch longer . That is if everything else will allow that . I want the 555-4106 instead of the 4109 and save $10 .
I sent Steeda an email . now Ill just wait and see
The picture makes it hard to understand as it does show the link between the two holes. The hole on the right is the stock length and the hole on the left is one inch longer. If you use the hole on the left you will probably have to bend the lip of the gas tank down to clear the link.
__________________
White 08 GT Roush S/C 445 HP/KDW2 285/40/18 tires/18 x 9.5 Steeda Ultralite wheels/ Steeda Competition springs/D Specs/FAYS2 Watt's Link/LCA/Adj UCA & Mnt/Upper strut mnts/GT500 Brake Kit/GT500 Front LCA/X5 Ball Jnt/Bmp Str + more
"Clint" - let me start by saying I mean no offense, its not my style. I don't know anything about your background and driving experience. I know only your slim profile (V6, Nitrous) and the posts you've made recently.
Based on this my impression is that you don't have a lot of pratical experience with this stuff, you have read several books perhaps and you have 3K to spend. Honestly it sounds like you are just tossing a bunch of money into a pot and pulling out a bunch of parts that you hope will change the cars behavior for the better. Frankly I just don't understand this approach. You talk about UCA length and that you don't like how short it is but you don't say what characteristic exactly you are trying to change and why a torque arm (with its increased weight) would solve your issue. I have spent lots of time on race tracks, talked to lots of guys who race these cars (including having dinner with a member of one of the Koni Challenge Mustang teams), read loads of info and I have yet to hear anyone praise the merits of a TA over the three link....just because Griggs happens to sell one you seen to think its the ticket to handling bliss. You talk about rear brakes and increasing the size and rear brake bias (this and other posts) but you seem more concerned about this rather than first trying the tired and true way - grippy tires and front pads.
Have you used the car on an AX course yet? If so, what is it that you seem to dislike so much. Regarding the brakes on an AX course, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't be up to the task or drag racing for that matter.
The best advice given by some of the smartest people in the business is consistently - 1) define exactly what behavior you want to change; 2) slowly purchase parts intended to solve/change that behavior, one part at a time to see its effect. Spend only the money necessary to get the car to where you want it.
Personally here is what I'd do - leave the car as it is. Save this 3K and keep saving until I had enough to upgrade to a used GT (better brakes, LSD, rear sway, more power, etc).
Again - no offense intended, no need to refute or rebut my comments, if I'm reading the situation wrong then you have my apologies and you can just ignore my advice.
__________________
07 GT 5spd: stock > road racing > stock.
Some of my threads are theory in nature to obtain knowledge feedback that is valuable to me when it comes to making my final decision about upgrades and such . Even when someone dose not agree with if a certain part is worth it or not I like that feedback also . My knowledge library in my head is growing all the time.
the TA seems to be a no go as i do not want the added weight of a 8.8 along with theTA .I am fond of TA setups as all my mid 80s camaros had a TA that extends to the trans mount .not that this is why I wanted a TA. I also read that It allows a mustang to be lowered more than the average mustang and still keep correct travel geometry.
The system I am using to come up with this list goes something like this.
shocks/adjustable shocks which is better and why ?
short Uca/long Uca which is better and why ?
panhard bar/watts link which is better and why ?
and so on
some one tell me why a short UCA is better than a long one .
My theory is that a longer Uca is better for smoother transitions under any setting Drag/road Race whatever conditions exist .A lower ride hight exaggerates geometry angles more with a short one.
Sleeper 08 Thanks for the link to the longer Uca . That is a great compromise .
I think that coilovers are going to wind up on it to. I like the idea of adjustable ride hight too.
I don't know anything about your background and driving experience.
Based on this my impression is that you don't have a lot of pratical experience with this stuff .
Personally here is what I'd do - leave the car as it is. Save this 3K and keep saving until I had enough to upgrade to a used GT (better brakes, LSD, rear sway, more power, etc).
your impression is right about practical experience when it comes to spending a lot of money on upgrades for a car. Most of my experience is small cheap do it yourself modifications . but I am a good enough driver that I can tell the difference in tire pressure changes at the limits of any car . I have also used wider tire combined with smaller tires as the only means of changing a car from understeer/oversteer to a neutral handling vehicle . Fwd, Rwd, even 4 wheel drive .
Not to brag or anything .
With my driving style the v6 fits me better than a GT . I rely on a larger cushion in the throttle control . let me explain with a bit of back ground.
I am 31 years old and once had a dream of becoming pro but never had any money to advance any farther than the local circle track( Out of business now.)and life has changed my priority's . I have a wife and 3 recently adopted kids (the light of my life). In my younger years I drove around with my friends racing everywhere we went . Not proud of all the laws i broke but there was a time when I could not go a day without reaching top speed or practicing drifting . That was before I knew it was even called drifting ( this was in the early and mid 90s ) all I knew is that I got a thrill out of taking a car past its limit no matter what the car was . when I got into semi organized head to head racing this skill came in handy more than once . The thrill of passing a car on the outside almost completely sideways with the front edge of my driver side bumper just clearing the passenger side of someone driving grip and then the whole crowd in the stands were jumping an cheering like it was the super bowl got me hooked. That was to get into the championship race for the night. on the championship race I raced a 69 chevy short bed truck with a 455 olds ,nos and sticky tires. I was no match for him with my 84 305ci camaro with bolt ons but he pulled over at the finish line and let me win ( he was 1/2 a lap ahead of me). He even refused the winnings and let me have it.this was a run what u brung class but some of the seasoned racers came up to me after the races and told me not alot of people could not of done that . As of now that was my 5 minutes of fame at twin city speedway .
I did beat that 455ci nos chevy fair and square once when a clay circle track in the area tried to start a run what you brung class . he had so much power that he was all over the track and couldn't keep up with my pedal feathering he then hit the panic button (nos) and spun out . ( he was behind me when he spun out )
I realized something that day at the clay circle track . more power is not always better to a point . Think about this a v6 vs Gt comparo . power at different pedal positions 25%,50%,75% 100% pedal .
My friends all have 05-08 Gts with 345hp ,they cant seem to keep theirs sideways without spinning out . not always the car. but it is harder to feather the pedal and get the exact power needed to control a high power car compared to a 210 hp car that is in a slide ( without smoking the tires off )
Anyway, my goal is to have a car that is very sensitive to the drivers input in all aspects of the cars controls thats why I chose a v6 . and that is what I am trying to do with the suspension ,make it as neutral as possible while trying to match the handling to the power available for a vehicle that is controllable even past its grip limit. some suspension setups are very unpredictable past the grip limit (not that the mustang is that bad ) but every little thing that can make geometry transitions smoother is a plus when the driver is as active in what the car is doing . Thats my goal .
Even today a few people come up to me and say " whats up Kamikaze Clint "
Last edited by clintster77; 02-02-2009 at 10:22 PM.
For your friends, it's probably equal parts them and the DBW throttle itself (especially if it's been tweaked with a tune set up with either drag racing or "responsive to the pedal" feel in mind). Unless you are in full, direct mechanical control over throttle position you never quite know what it's up to.
With a little less power, you can better get away with being a human driver rather then a 64-bit computer that feeds in throttle in accordance with what you want the DBW's programming to really make it do.
UCA length, UCA length relative to LCA length, and probably UCA length relative to the vertical distance between the axle side LCA and UCA pivots all figure in to optimizing UCA length. Generally, longer is better for slowing down the rates of changes in the anti's as the suspension moves. IIRC, the link lengths for SCCA Trans-Am cars were out there somewhere around 40". Saw one picture recently (forget exactly where) that had the chassis side UCA pickup inside the cabin on the right side of the tunnel almost under the driver's elbow. Sheet metal still to be fitted.
I should have figured "dirt track" was the background once you made it clear that drifting wasn't your game. So you probably know that the really high power classes that permit pretty much unlimited stack axle suspension modifications have evolved into arrangements far more complex than 3-links and torque arms (and even a streetable decoupled torque arm that has been developed for the 4th gen F-bodies). Obviously, the intent is to provide still better performance and/or make it easier to use said performance.
Technically, I think there's a lot can be learned from the roundy-round racing once you look past the non-symmetry of the typical setups. Driving-wise, while it is really nice to have the ability to drive "loose" as another tool in your emergency driving skills kit, it has no place being used intentionally on the street. No place on a paved track either, I'd guess, as you'd get out-accelerated off the corners once they had you figured out.
FWIW, it's too bad that 'Stock Car Racing' magazine went under, but at least 'Circle Track' is picking up most of the tech side. If you aren't doing so already, you might want to read Bob Bolles' columns and features and maybe John Gibson's (came over from SCR).
There's also a "Chassis Newsletter" e-mailed out ~monthly by Mark Ortiz (another consultant to circle track and road racing).
With a little less power, you can better get away with being a human driver rather then a 64-bit computer that feeds in throttle in accordance with what you want the DBW's programming to really make it do.
I should have figured "dirt track" was the background once you made it clear that drifting wasn't your game.
I'd guess, as you'd get out-accelerated off the corners once they had you figured out.
There's also a "Chassis Newsletter" e-mailed out ~monthly by Mark Ortiz (another consultant to circle track and road racing).
Norm
sorry Norm what dose DBW's stand for ?
The first half of the story was a asphalt 1/4 mile oval when I beat the Oldsmobile car. When I beat the Chevy truck with the 455 Olds engine with nos was at the 1/3 mile clay oval track . sorry for any misunderstanding .
I only raced a few times on clay . The camaro was not up to the task of dirt.
But I did race for several seasons at the asphalt track . Usually got in the top 5 out of sometimes 45 cars or so. They paid the top 10 places every week. since there were no rules about nos or sticky tires the top 4 were really in a class of their own (to me) compared to my 195 hp Camaro that I had just delivered pizza in before the races .
How do I get on that e-mail chassis list ? I suppose just go to the circle track and road racing site.
You are correct Norm when you said ''there is no place for this style on the street or a road race track'' . If I drove like that on a road race track seasond drivers would beat me If they were any good at all .I don't know how true race car drivers prepare for emergency situations as I never had a mentor to tell me any thing about it . All I knew as a kid was how awesome of a driver I thought any nascar driver was to me when I seen them make a great save . I was about 7 years old when I began to understand car handling on the upper limits and what would make a car slide and such. As soon as I got my first car the first thing I did is practice sliding it so I could get a feel of it for myself .
I think that all race car drivers should take there cars to a large asphalt lot or something so they can get a feel of what is past pure grip for emergency sake and what their cars characteristics are in the twilight zone .
Not that I am saying that as a master of all or anything .hahahahaa
I realized something that day at the clay circle track . more power is not always better to a point . Think about this a v6 vs Gt comparo . power at different pedal positions 25%,50%,75% 100% pedal .
My friends all have 05-08 Gts with 345hp ,they cant seem to keep theirs sideways without spinning out . not always the car. but it is harder to feather the pedal and get the exact power needed to control a high power car compared to a 210 hp car that is in a slide ( without smoking the tires off )
Quote:
For your friends, it's probably equal parts them and the DBW throttle itself (especially if it's been tweaked with a tune set up with either drag racing or "responsive to the pedal" feel in mind). Unless you are in full, direct mechanical control over throttle position you never quite know what it's up to.
Yeah, the drive by wire throttle is very sensitive- Ford puts it in as they think people see this as 'sporty response'. In some cars if you give it half throttle, you will get a lot out; then give it full throttle and there wasn't much left. It makes the car feel sporty because of the engine response, but makes half the throttle useless. That is something I definitely want to change on my own car.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
