5.0L General Discussion This section is for non-tech specific information pertaining to 5.0L Mustangs.

panhard bar

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jun 13, 2010 | 09:29 PM
  #11  
JD1969's Avatar
JD1969
Pro. B.S. caller outer
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,644
From: IL
Default

Originally Posted by Shelty



not my car, but my plans for my suspension, yeah the tourqe arm allows you to chuck the upper control arms in the round file... you will need to however, swap out your rear springs to the MM torque arm springs, I dont remember why, its something to do with the spring rates I think
IIRC it is because it will make a the spring rate feel softer. You take away the bind and the rate goes down. That said I am still running the same springs I had before (BBK lowering springs) and my car handles and rides fine. The MM springs are on my to do list, but they are not urgent. IMO
Old Jun 13, 2010 | 09:36 PM
  #12  
JD1969's Avatar
JD1969
Pro. B.S. caller outer
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,644
From: IL
Default

Originally Posted by fs308
that makes a lot of sense. those torque arms arent cheap at all. what struts and shocks are you using?
I am running Tokico Illumina 5 ways, from what I gather a lot of other guys use them with similar setups to mine. They are a nice damper for the $$. My car would not really act bad unless I pushed it OR if it hit boost hard (like on a cool night). The fact is that 1st and 2nd are near useless with my regular street tires, but when it broke loose in 3rd at about 40 while I passing another car (sideways LOL) I knew I had to fix it. Depending on your power level and how you drive it might never be an issue, but my bet is that if you are bothering to upgrade these parts, you will at some point push the car, it's what we do
Old Jun 13, 2010 | 09:39 PM
  #13  
Shelty's Avatar
Shelty
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 4,842
From: Bumblef***, MD
Default

Originally Posted by JD1969
IIRC it is because it will make a the spring rate feel softer. You take away the bind and the rate goes down. That said I am still running the same springs I had before (BBK lowering springs) and my car handles and rides fine. The MM springs are on my to do list, but they are not urgent. IMO
gotcha, i read about it, i just forgot why n stuff.

but yeah, i want to have the setup in the pic i posted, only retain the stock location sway bar and retain conventional springs. my car wont be built or ***** to the wall enough to need that swaybar or coilovers... my goal is a kenne bell powered 302, with a modest HCI and maybe a lil giggle gas
Old Jun 13, 2010 | 09:50 PM
  #14  
mjr46's Avatar
mjr46
D.R. THE PATHETIC DORK
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 30,871
From: West Virginia
Default

Originally Posted by JD1969
Mjr46, I wonder if mine acted poorly because of the bushing, the shocks, the springs, or the combination. The car would break loose at 6-8 psi of boost in third gear almost at random, made for a hairy ride at times. The other funny thing is that I would spin the inside rear tire, like my LSD was worn out, but it was new. Once I put on the TQ arm and ditched the uppers, all of these issues went away.
I'm running a 347 on a 100 shot and well into the 10's and never had it break loose, but then again that's on a straight line, on my ride home I live on a winding road and love to power into it like I'm road racing amazingly enough it handles quite well for being set up for straight line racing
Old Jun 13, 2010 | 10:00 PM
  #15  
JD1969's Avatar
JD1969
Pro. B.S. caller outer
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 9,644
From: IL
Default

My bet is that your shocks and springs are where the difference is.
Old Jun 13, 2010 | 10:06 PM
  #16  
67mustang302's Avatar
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,468
From: California
Default

If you're going to run a lateral locating device then you might as well run a Watts link. Not only does it provide better control than a panhard, it lowers the roll center on the rear.
Old Jun 13, 2010 | 10:15 PM
  #17  
w8less's Avatar
w8less
Thread Starter
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,396
From: KY
Default

Originally Posted by 67mustang302
If you're going to run a lateral locating device then you might as well run a Watts link. Not only does it provide better control than a panhard, it lowers the roll center on the rear.

link?
Old Jun 13, 2010 | 10:16 PM
  #18  
mjr46's Avatar
mjr46
D.R. THE PATHETIC DORK
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 30,871
From: West Virginia
Default

Originally Posted by JD1969
My bet is that your shocks and springs are where the difference is.
just the standard lakewood 50/50 90/10 set up
Old Jun 14, 2010 | 04:11 AM
  #19  
67mustang302's Avatar
67mustang302
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,468
From: California
Default

Originally Posted by fs308
link?
http://www.fays2.net/

I know they make them for my car, not sure about all the year Mustangs though. I imagine it covers them all, though I could be wrong.
Old Jun 14, 2010 | 05:36 AM
  #20  
w8less's Avatar
w8less
Thread Starter
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 13,396
From: KY
Default

that thing is wild looking! why is it better? it is double the prove pf a panhard bar and on the corral mentions you could still use a torque arm



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:36 AM.