Jazzer The Cat

Welcome, barq

Yes..... your goal is realistic, just need to accept NVH as a by-product of the improvement in cornering.

Not much else.... can be done to stiffen the body and remain a street-friendly car.

No... I recommend UPR, but not THAT particular package. I like the LCA's, but recommend the Pro-Series UCA instead or leave the OEM ones. You need to know, that as soon as you go with a new set of rear control arms, your NVH will increase and especially with the uppers (see below)

Yes... skip the UCA's and go PHB or WL with TA to go the correct direction for handling you desire. It won't ever corner quile like the Mini, as the Stang is just too heavy.

OH gheez..... look at tthe time! I gotta go to work, but will get back to this later today

Jazzer

Norm Peterson

Seat time, tires/wheels, everything else . . . (autocrossers' motto)

Seat time - judging by join date and post count, it sounds like you're relatively new to the Mustang. It's several hundred lbs heavier over a longer wheelbase with bigger overhangs, so it's spread out over more real estate than your mini was. It'll tend to be a little more deliberate in its response even when the lateral grip is made to match your Mini's. Give this a little time and your timing will adapt.

Tires/Wheels - I don't have any idea what's on it now, but I'd start here or at least choose at this point for when you need them. Basically you want a tire as high up the performance scale as you can tolerate for financial and bad-weather reasons, relatively wide, and then mount them on wheels up toward the maximum recommended width for that size. Inflate the fronts 3 or 4 psi more than the rears, and leave the rears at or very near the recommended pressure, at least for now. This will sharpen the response.

The rest -
you've read the guide, and basically you want to stiffen the car against cornering roll and accelerating/braking pitch without making the ride intolerable. A moderate increase in spring rate and sta-bar diameters, together with upgrading the shocks and struts is what improves this.

UCAs - from having had a car with a similar suspension as your '01, currently having a S197 Mustang, and having driven a torque arm equipped car - I wouldn't put any expense into the UCAs. I'd either leave them stock (possibly with replacement OE bushings) or swap them off the car entirely for either a TA or a 3-link (which add a requirement for a Panhard bar or Watts link).

LCAs - I'd look around for something with a Johnny joint (Currie), roto-joint (UMI), or similar (there's at least one other one I can't think of offhand) in one end instead of a rod end/Heim joint. As long as the rear springs sit on the LCAs, there isn't much you can do to avoid poly or hard rubber in the other end.

There are a few bushings up front that you might eventually replace with something firmer, including the rack mount bushings.

Maybe the first of the rest should have been a performance alignment matched to your overall average driving. Most people don't corner at/above 0.7 lateral g all the time, so setting camber somewhere out beyond -2° would almost certainly be too aggressive, but anywhere from -1° to maybe -1.5° (that latter number only if you're really aggressive in the twisty bits) is probably do-able for most folks with an interest in cornering/handling. IOW be honest with yourself on this. I'm aware of the Mini's appetite for tires, and you probably don't want to get into that with 245/45-17's or larger.


Norm

barqsdrinker

Thanks for the input thus far!!

First off, yes, I am new to a Mustang. I've had my 'Stang for about a month now, so while I still am adjusting to the characteristics of this particular vehicle, there is some room for improvement on it that I can tell right off the bat. I've had plenty of cars/trucks/motorcycles and understand that they all have various unique characteristics in handling, performance, comfort, etc. And small changes from year-to-year on the same model will cause different aspects to rise and/or fall in/out of favor.

Just for reference:
Edmund's lists the MINI at ~2800 pounds. They list my last car (2006 Pontiac Grand Prix GXP) at ~3600 pounds and the 2001 GT at ~3100 pounds.

Part of what has led me down the suspension path is the fact that parking lot practice maneuvers in my Mustang have left me feeling like the car just simply isn't planted well to the ground. My bigger and heavier GP GXP was much more attached to the pavement for the same routine. I know I can't get MINI handling out of Mustang (couldn't get it out of the GP GXP, either) - the physics just don't allow it. But I do believe that I can do better than what is currently setup in the car.

As for the Mustang itself, I bought it about 30 days ago with ~107k on the clock and of this writing, she has ~112k. Yes, I do a lot of driving and have a lot of seat time.

The tires that are on her are Goodyear Eagle GT's in the stock 17" size with about 30% tread left. I really hate these tires. They're loud and they tramline like a beeyotch. I'm currently looking at either Bridgestone Potenza RE970AS Pole Position's or Continental ExtremeContact DW's. Don't get much snow here in North Texas, but the wife and I tend to take weekend driving trips to various locales, so I kinda have to be ready to drive it anywhere. I did up the fronts PSI by 4, but it is raining here so never really got to see how much sharper the response is. Perhaps this weekend.

The UCA's, then, I believe it is best to just leave them be until I can get the better rear-end suspension put in. Gotcha! One less thing that I have worry or spend $$ on!

The LCA's, however, those waters seem to be a lot more murky. I looked at UMI's 1999 - 2004 Ford Mustang Single Adjustable Lower Control Arms and UPR's 99-04 Mustang Chrome Moly Adjustable Urethane Lower Control Arms as well as their 1999-2004 Ford Mustang Pro Series Lower Control Arms with Sway Bar Mount. Amongst those three, I really don't know which to get. Some advice here would really be helpful.

Anyone know what the stock spring rate is for my GT?? I realized tonight that shocks/struts/springs will be in order. I'm very sure that they are still the stockers from when it was new. Any thoughts on this Eibach setup or this Bilstein kit?? The Eibach is closer to the drop that I'm looking for, but I've always had phenomenal ride quality with Bilsteins.

Honestly, I think that I'll save up some pennies and just do the LCA's, springs, dampeners all at the same time. After that work is completed, then see how the ride and suspension needs tweaking from there. Sound like a plan??

Jazzer The Cat

I didn't know the Mini was that heavy I have never given it any thought, but just figured they were probably around 2100 lbs. or so. Anyway, I was about to ask why you are looking at A/S tires, until I read a bit further. Of the two listed, I would go Continentals, but would be nicer to run a more aggressive Summer-only tire.

In regards to your plan and you read the suspension guide, you no doubt saw the "What are your ULTIMATE goals" question. In such a case as the one you describe, I would ask you to at least look into complete suspension kit or for the totally hardcore extreme end of suspension modification found in Griggs Racing, in lue of the direction you appear to be headed now. That is to say, if you really want responsive and Mini-like cornering, CO's would be a better direction and not go with conventional spring location. One thing I would like to reiterate, is the NVH that will come with modification of your suspension. If you and your wife take lots of road trips, this can become uncomfortable over time.

Norm has excellent advice above, so have a little pow-wow with the misses (and yourself) to consider the trade-off for going with a nice improvement versus possibly a more serious corner-carving Mustang, if that is your desire. Either way is fine, but is no fun and expensive to swap out parts/modifications that are good, but don't meet your expectations and ULTIMATE goals, whatever they happen to be

Jazzer

Norm Peterson

I've seen a table that listed some of the spring rates for the Fox/SN95 cars, but can't seem to find it right away. I did see where the '87 GT's were using something like variable rate 470-550's up front and 200-300's for the rear, if that's any help at all. The sixxer cars ran linear springs that were somewhat softer (370-ish & I think 170-ish, respectively). Depending on your tolerance (and hers) for a firm-ish ride, something in the 550 - 650 range up front and maybe 300 out back shouldn't be too much. Wheel rates won't be nearly that high, and it's wheel rate that you mostly feel.


Of those two kits, what I'd really rather see would be the Bilsteins with 1" lowering. Mostly this is because I have no experience with the Eibach dampers, or seen any useful review commentary about them. They may be fine, but the Bilsteins are more of a known quantity.

The reason for 1" is that you generally retain better geometry - not necessarily because the resulting static camber ends up visibly more negative after lowering, but because camber gain (the rate at which camber goes negative as the suspension moves into 'bump') is reduced leaving you with less compensation for however much the car rolls in a turn. Incidentally, with a lowered strut suspension the geometric effect is a tendency for more roll to occur, which means that some of your new springs' extra rate above stock gets used up just to maintain the amount of roll at the stock level. Not all of it, though it's probably reasonable to consider that part of the new spring rate as "wasted".

The amount of rear axle roll steer is also somewhat sensitive to ride height, and unless (until?) you get into geometry correction you may not want to move too far away from stock height back there either. Site sponsor Sam Strano (stranoparts.com, but use the phone for best service) carries the Konis and can probably get the Bilsteins as well.

Another option of course would be Koni Sports (aka "yellows") with the ~1" springs of your choice.

The only other damper name I see much mention of is Tokicos, and I'll tell you up front that the Illumina line of adjustables are considerably harsher than either the Bilsteins or the Konis. Needlessly so IMO, based on experience with them on two different cars because nothing better was available. D-specs are Tokico's newer line, and may or may not be much better. HP's are essentially stock replacement.


That's how I'd proceed in order to minimize the amount of re-work. Under ideal conditions you might be able to hold off on the LCAs, but chances are that the LCA bushings no longer fit any good definition of "ideal", and probably wouldn't be anyway if you're at all into hard launches.

Further tuning would get into swapping your sta-bars, more to tune the understeer/oversteer balance than to limit roll too much further. You ought to be able to find adjustable-stiffness bars.


Norm

Norm Peterson

Other than perhaps Loti and early Miatas, cars haven't been that light in decades, particularly anything rated to seat four. The 1972 Pinto that we owned - which still had the little bumpers that year and virtually none of the safety and emissions weight carried by today's cars - came in at about 2250 as a hatchback. The sedan was slightly lighter (less glass).


Norm

Jazzer The Cat

There is a Lotus.... Elise I think, that is at my AX days often and weighs in at like 1800 lbs. I took a ride in it and is HORRIBLY uncomfortable The passenger seat is like two small sheets of plywood with a thin layer of leather on top. My legs were "funneled" down into where only an 18th century T’ang dynasty emperor would find comfort and just held on for dear life!