4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang Technical discussions on 1996-2004 4.6 Liter Modular Motors (2V and 4V) within.

Lowering

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 05-15-2005, 02:05 AM
  #11  
Acer2428
Site Mod
 
Acer2428's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oh, Hi.... Oh?
Posts: 8,667
Default RE: Lowering

Wow, I apologize... Was supposed to be a jab/joke... Wasn't calling YOU an idiot.

The fox shocks/new shocks are a good idea because their overall legnth is shorter than the stock shocks. Therefore, You have a greater range to play with. I realize there are differing opinions, I was simply giving mine.

The ride with stock shocks felt worn even after only a few thousand miles. After throwing on the new shocks, the ride was MUCH nicer, not to mention traction was greatly improved (has to do with the shock more than the height, but whatever).

You're still taking away the "range" of dampening...as you pointed out, closer to your bumpstops.

Edit: I rarely have time now to check threads 3-4 times. If you don't hear from me and you want to hear my rubbutle or you think I'm BSing (it could happen) just PM me a little link...no biggie. Don't think I'm just ignoring you.
Acer2428 is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 02:40 AM
  #12  
Dan04COBRA
Super Moderator
 
Dan04COBRA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location:
Posts: 14,917
Default RE: Lowering

Acer, you're a flippin' idiot.
Dan04COBRA is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 02:41 AM
  #13  
Acer2428
Site Mod
 
Acer2428's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oh, Hi.... Oh?
Posts: 8,667
Default RE: Lowering

w00t w00t!
Acer2428 is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 12:29 PM
  #14  
Blue70
2nd Gear Member
 
Blue70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 485
Default RE: Lowering

ORIGINAL: Acer2428

Wow, I apologize... Was supposed to be a jab/joke... Wasn't calling YOU an idiot.

The fox shocks/new shocks are a good idea because their overall length is shorter than the stock shocks. Therefore, You have a greater range to play with. I realize there are differing opinions, I was simply giving mine.

The ride with stock shocks felt worn even after only a few thousand miles. After throwing on the new shocks, the ride was MUCH nicer, not to mention traction was greatly improved (has to do with the shock more than the height, but whatever).

You're still taking away the "range" of dampening...as you pointed out, closer to your bumpstops.

Edit: I rarely have time now to check threads 3-4 times. If you don't hear from me and you want to hear my rubbutle or you think I'm BSing (it could happen) just PM me a little link...no biggie. Don't think I'm just ignoring you.

Don’t worry, I don't take it personally [&o]

You say “you think I'm BSing (it could happen)â€â€¦.I think that’s what you are doing now. You are contradicting your own statements.

If the new Fox shocks are shorter you have less range to play with….not greater.
That is not an opinion…its simple fact.

The shorter shocks might give you more range in the compression stroke, but it does no good because you will hit the bump stops before you get to the extra stroke the shorter fox shocks gave you, but in switching to the shorter fox shocks (for compression you can not use) you have lost extension travel because the shocks are shorter and at ride height you will be closer to your extension limit, and that will cause the shock to hyperextend easier.

On the compression you have bump stops protecting your shocks, there is nothing really protecting your shocks from hyperextension and the shorter shocks just made you more susceptible to damage.

“After throwing on the new shocks, the ride was MUCH nicerâ€â€¦â€¦..Ya think? [&:]
Of course any decent new shocks will give you a better ride, stocks are far from top of the line.

You are correct on one thing, traction is all about springs and shocks, not rear end height….unless you have only an inch of travel front and rear..that would not give you very good weight transfer at all.

I’ll send you a PM and await your reply
Blue70 is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 12:45 PM
  #15  
Acer2428
Site Mod
 
Acer2428's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Oh, Hi.... Oh?
Posts: 8,667
Default RE: Lowering

Hmmmm.... I suppose I had not thought about it that much.

Here's what I was thinking: Despite the fact that you have less overall travel, true, you have more useable compression travel. Let's say the shock has a compression stroke of 6", whereas the the fox shock has 5. If you're semi-compressing stock shocks more than stock 100% of the time, let's say you only get 3" or so before you hit the bumpstops. Now on the fox shock, you have 4" or so.

And as far as replacing the shock to get a better ride. I replaced them with $25 monroe sensitrack shocks for a foxbody. Not exactly top of the line. Not only was the ride smoother, traction was improved as I said. The greater compression range would seem also to lead to greater weight transfer.

Hmmm... The more I think about it, the more it makes sense (your idea), But I'd like to hear someone who supports changing out your shocks... I know someone can do a better job of explaining it than I can.

P.S. For $25 a shock for a better ride and greater traction, why not? What else can do that for $50?
Acer2428 is offline  
Old 05-15-2005, 01:04 PM
  #16  
Blue70
2nd Gear Member
 
Blue70's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location:
Posts: 485
Default RE: Lowering

ORIGINAL: Acer2428


Here's what I was thinking: Despite the fact that you have less overall travel, true, you have more useable compression travel. Let's say the shock has a compression stroke of 6", whereas the the fox shock has 5. If you're semi-compressing stock shocks more than stock 100% of the time, let's say you only get 3" or so before you hit the bumpstops. Now on the fox shock, you have 4" or so.

I think this is where you are getting confused.. The bump stops do not move, they are usually attached to the frame or A-arm and usually hit the rear end or frame. These measurements never change with shocks, only with new springs.

SO….at ride height lets say you have 2†till your frame hits your bumpstop, if you put a shock with 3â€of compression from your static ride height you can still only use 2†of that compression travel, so by putting in a shock that has 5†of compression travel from the static ride height you gain nothing because you still will hit the bump stops at 2†of travel.

You learn something new every day...I hope I can help you fill todays quota
Blue70 is offline  
Old 05-16-2005, 05:18 AM
  #17  
LazrRd00GT
2nd Gear Member
 
LazrRd00GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location:
Posts: 273
Default RE: Lowering

definetly go with the steeda sports springs, i love em, and if you want good shocks/struts, go with the bilsteens because you can further lower the car with them if your not satisfied.
LazrRd00GT is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
lincolnshibuya
V6 (1994-2004) Mustangs
4
07-05-2020 03:05 AM
baddog671
Archive - Parts For Sale
20
07-26-2016 01:20 PM
UrS4
S197 Handling Section
10
10-03-2015 06:23 AM
uedlose
The Racers Bench
4
10-01-2015 08:31 PM
NYstang
V6 (1994-2004) Mustangs
1
09-30-2015 09:56 PM



Quick Reply: Lowering



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 AM.