Wheels or Suspension? $2,500 max
01-02-2008, 09:05 PM
#11
4th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 1,313
RE: Wheels or Suspension? $2,500 max
I have tossed around the idea of the 275/40/17 wheel and tire combo as that is a very inexpensive way to go. I don't like going to a smaller diameter tire though with 4.10s as some of the longer tracks may make use of 5th gear too much.
First step will be wheels, tires, adj panhard bar and brace. Already have the brakes upgraded but will add ducts.
First step will be wheels, tires, adj panhard bar and brace. Already have the brakes upgraded but will add ducts.
01-02-2008, 11:04 PM
#12
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Flanders, NJ
Posts: 408
RE: Wheels or Suspension? $2,500 max
275-40R17 is the stock tire size for the C3 corvettes hence they are very very popular making them a little cheaper to get a set of R-compound tires i.e. RA-1's. www.edgeracing.com hands down has the best prices on Toyo tires.
Im not positive on this but those 4.10 gears might kill you at a track day, if you can go back to the stock gearing.
Im not positive on this but those 4.10 gears might kill you at a track day, if you can go back to the stock gearing.
01-02-2008, 11:05 PM
#13
4th Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 1,700
RE: Wheels or Suspension? $2,500 max
Going into 5th gear should NOT be an option. It is such a big RPM drop that you lose all of your torque. Recovery when you get loose will be next to impossible. You will likely find that you need to ditch the 4.10's. My 06' runs out of gear only at California Speedway, and honestly at 140 mph that is FINE WITH ME lol. No matter what, at that speed if you F up it's gonna hurt. I had considered dropping down to 3.27's, but we only run that track once a year and i have my Cobra now.
01-03-2008, 04:23 PM
#14
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,936
RE: Wheels or Suspension? $2,500 max
Suspension is what gives the car stability. Good tires hook the car to the road, and shoudln't be overlooked. My recommendation is good tires on stock sized or not million dollar rims and work the suspension for your needs.
I have a pretty good idea how these things work. I own a Mustang, I race one too. I've setup many winning autox cars (National Championship winning, not local event winning), and I'm pretty particular when doing this type of work. I can even tell you how items like springs and bars make the car different than stock.
I think you need a good set of springs (ones we know the rates one, and fit the bill), some good dampers (that's be a Koni preference from me, but D-specs work ok), some appropriate swaybars, adjustable links to get the pre-load out of the front bar, and work from there. You'd be amazed how well a car setup like that works, I promise. If you want more, great. From there is a matter of what you think needs changed about how the car drives. We pick the item or items to deal with that, without screwing up 4 other things. And there are things that do indeed mess up handling and stability, despite their claims.
I have a pretty good idea how these things work. I own a Mustang, I race one too. I've setup many winning autox cars (National Championship winning, not local event winning), and I'm pretty particular when doing this type of work. I can even tell you how items like springs and bars make the car different than stock.
I think you need a good set of springs (ones we know the rates one, and fit the bill), some good dampers (that's be a Koni preference from me, but D-specs work ok), some appropriate swaybars, adjustable links to get the pre-load out of the front bar, and work from there. You'd be amazed how well a car setup like that works, I promise. If you want more, great. From there is a matter of what you think needs changed about how the car drives. We pick the item or items to deal with that, without screwing up 4 other things. And there are things that do indeed mess up handling and stability, despite their claims.
01-03-2008, 05:25 PM
#15
4th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 1,313
RE: Wheels or Suspension? $2,500 max
Sam,
I would be interested in learning your recommendations regarding my goals for my car. You can PM me with your thoughts.
My order for acquiring parts would be to start with better rubber on my stock 17" rim, brake duct upgrade, adj panhard bar and brace, linear rate springs (don't know what rates yet), adj shocks (D-specs or koni), FRPP sway bar set with adj front bar, CC plates, fixed LCA, adj UCA, k-member brace, strut tower brace, . . .
How's that sound?
I would be interested in learning your recommendations regarding my goals for my car. You can PM me with your thoughts.
My order for acquiring parts would be to start with better rubber on my stock 17" rim, brake duct upgrade, adj panhard bar and brace, linear rate springs (don't know what rates yet), adj shocks (D-specs or koni), FRPP sway bar set with adj front bar, CC plates, fixed LCA, adj UCA, k-member brace, strut tower brace, . . .
How's that sound?
01-03-2008, 05:46 PM
#16
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,936
RE: Wheels or Suspension? $2,500 max
ORIGINAL: UrS4
Sam,
I would be interested in learning your recommendations regarding my goals for my car. You can PM me with your thoughts.
My order for acquiring parts would be to start with better rubber on my stock 17" rim, brake duct upgrade, adj panhard bar and brace, linear rate springs (don't know what rates yet), adj shocks (D-specs or koni), FRPP sway bar set with adj front bar, CC plates, fixed LCA, adj UCA, k-member brace, strut tower brace, . . .
How's that sound?
Sam,
I would be interested in learning your recommendations regarding my goals for my car. You can PM me with your thoughts.
My order for acquiring parts would be to start with better rubber on my stock 17" rim, brake duct upgrade, adj panhard bar and brace, linear rate springs (don't know what rates yet), adj shocks (D-specs or koni), FRPP sway bar set with adj front bar, CC plates, fixed LCA, adj UCA, k-member brace, strut tower brace, . . .
How's that sound?
In shortfor a handling car I'd reshuffle to be shocks, bars, springs (?), adjustble rod-ended PHB,K and STB braces. Then assess CC plates, type of LCA's an so on. You can get great camber with cheaper methods, and we have plenty of caster already. No ever car wheelhops, and those that do are stock height. For instance my GT does, the Shelby does not, even on the same tires and shocks.
So why put on parts if you don't have the problem? After lowering any hop might quit, if so-great.I'd love to help, and prove my worth around here.
If you want, feel free to call me and I'd be happy to tell you why I think what I do, and so on. If you like that idea, PM me and I'll get you my info.
01-03-2008, 06:38 PM
#17
4th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 1,313
RE: Wheels or Suspension? $2,500 max
I'd only do CC plates if the car drops too far with the springs. I only want a 1-1.5" drop so nothing that should screw up my camber adj or my pinion angle by doing a Eibach sportline kind of drop. Like to stay with a linear spring as they are easier to tune the shocks with.
I didn't know that the weaker link in the suspension is the shocks over the springs, I thought changing springs should warrant changing shocks but I didn't know you could do shocks and keep the stock springs and see a big difference in ride characteristics.
So do all poly bushings bind? Is that why you suggest a rod ended PHB?
I didn't know that the weaker link in the suspension is the shocks over the springs, I thought changing springs should warrant changing shocks but I didn't know you could do shocks and keep the stock springs and see a big difference in ride characteristics.
So do all poly bushings bind? Is that why you suggest a rod ended PHB?
01-03-2008, 08:14 PM
#18
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
RE: Wheels or Suspension? $2,500 max
Imagine your rear axle, suspension, and chassis in rear view while cornering hard. The chassis is probably rolling 3° or so relative to the axle, which means that the LCAs (and the UCA) have to accommodate that 3° over their own lengths, and this is where "articulation" comes in. That means that either the bushings "squish" or the LCAs/UCA themselves have to twist a total of 3° in this case. But since either boxed or tubular LCAs/UCA are quite rigid, that puts the requirement for dealing with the twist back on the bushings. Unfortunately, the extra stiffness of the poly that helps out with fore/aft axle location now resists being forced out of shape in LCA/UCA torsion, when you really want it to be soft. Do not underestimate how much load can result from that 3° - even though the angle does not look like much, it can mean that you've added nearly as much roll stiffness as you'd get by adding a second stockish-diameter rear sta-bar. Maybe more in a particularly rigid dragstrip-oriented design (where cornering is unimportant and all that extra roll stiffness probably helps re-plant the RR).
Some years ago, there were some simple tests run on various types and combinations of LCA bushings to determine the amount of added stiffness (aka "bind" in most discussions). I probably still have a copy of the results and the discussion somewhere.
There are or have been a number of attempts at getting poly bushings to remain stiff along the LCA/UCA axis but more flexible (aka "compliant") for the LCA/UCA torsion case, with varying degrees of success.
Get in touch withSam. He may be relatively new to Mustangs in general and here in particular, but he's anything but a newbie when it comes to setting a car up. You won't be disappointed.
Norm
Some years ago, there were some simple tests run on various types and combinations of LCA bushings to determine the amount of added stiffness (aka "bind" in most discussions). I probably still have a copy of the results and the discussion somewhere.
There are or have been a number of attempts at getting poly bushings to remain stiff along the LCA/UCA axis but more flexible (aka "compliant") for the LCA/UCA torsion case, with varying degrees of success.
Get in touch withSam. He may be relatively new to Mustangs in general and here in particular, but he's anything but a newbie when it comes to setting a car up. You won't be disappointed.
Norm
01-03-2008, 08:28 PM
#19
4th Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 1,313
RE: Wheels or Suspension? $2,500 max
ORIGINAL: Norm Peterson
Imagine your rear axle, suspension, and chassis in rear view while cornering hard. The chassis is probably rolling 3° or so relative to the axle, which means that the LCAs (and the UCA) have to accommodate that 3° over their own lengths, and this is where "articulation" comes in. That means that either the bushings "squish" or the LCAs/UCA themselves have to twist a total of 3° in this case. But since either boxed or tubular LCAs/UCA are quite rigid, that puts the requirement for dealing with the twist back on the bushings. Unfortunately, the extra stiffness of the poly that helps out with fore/aft axle location now resists being forced out of shape in LCA/UCA torsion, when you really want it to be soft. Do not underestimate how much load can result from that 3° - even though the angle does not look like much, it can mean that you've added nearly as much roll stiffness as you'd get by adding a second stockish-diameter rear sta-bar. Maybe more in a particularly rigid dragstrip-oriented design (where cornering is unimportant and all that extra roll stiffness probably helps re-plant the RR).
Some years ago, there were some simple tests run on various types and combinations of LCA bushings to determine the amount of added stiffness (aka "bind" in most discussions). I probably still have a copy of the results and the discussion somewhere.
There are or have been a number of attempts at getting poly bushings to remain stiff along the LCA/UCA axis but more flexible (aka "compliant") for the LCA/UCA torsion case, with varying degrees of success.
Get in touch withSam. He may be relatively new to Mustangs in general and here in particular, but he's anything but a newbie when it comes to setting a car up. You won't be disappointed.
Norm
Imagine your rear axle, suspension, and chassis in rear view while cornering hard. The chassis is probably rolling 3° or so relative to the axle, which means that the LCAs (and the UCA) have to accommodate that 3° over their own lengths, and this is where "articulation" comes in. That means that either the bushings "squish" or the LCAs/UCA themselves have to twist a total of 3° in this case. But since either boxed or tubular LCAs/UCA are quite rigid, that puts the requirement for dealing with the twist back on the bushings. Unfortunately, the extra stiffness of the poly that helps out with fore/aft axle location now resists being forced out of shape in LCA/UCA torsion, when you really want it to be soft. Do not underestimate how much load can result from that 3° - even though the angle does not look like much, it can mean that you've added nearly as much roll stiffness as you'd get by adding a second stockish-diameter rear sta-bar. Maybe more in a particularly rigid dragstrip-oriented design (where cornering is unimportant and all that extra roll stiffness probably helps re-plant the RR).
Some years ago, there were some simple tests run on various types and combinations of LCA bushings to determine the amount of added stiffness (aka "bind" in most discussions). I probably still have a copy of the results and the discussion somewhere.
There are or have been a number of attempts at getting poly bushings to remain stiff along the LCA/UCA axis but more flexible (aka "compliant") for the LCA/UCA torsion case, with varying degrees of success.
Get in touch withSam. He may be relatively new to Mustangs in general and here in particular, but he's anything but a newbie when it comes to setting a car up. You won't be disappointed.
Norm
So if I understand you correctly, if getting a more rigid suspension bushing causes binding because the joints can't articulate, would that mean that the suspension components won't be functioning better than the stock more compliant bushing that will allow articulation and thus maintain a larger contact patch at the tire? So going with a joint that articulates well in more than one plane, such as a ball joint (rod end), the suspension components won't bind and will be able to transfer the forces to the proper wheel and maintain a larger patch? The downside is an increase in NVH due to the loss of quieting material used in the stock joints and poly bushings, correct?
I would imagine it is more complex as besides having a joint that can articulate in more than one plane is also at the mercy of the geometry of the suspension components and how they change as the ride height is changed with lowering springs. Am I somewhat close, is a kindergarden kinda way?
01-03-2008, 08:51 PM
#20
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: state of confusion
Posts: 7,635
RE: Wheels or Suspension? $2,500 max
Pretty close. As long as you don't run the rod end or other spherical out of rotational travel, the geometry changes only affect the kinematics (the motions of all these parts rather than the loads that are developed in them).
There is also another, smaller articulation motion involved that requires bushing compliance or spherical joints. A single rod end eliminates the torsion and maybe half of this little gremlin, but it takes rod ends at both ends to completely eliminate this one.
Norm
There is also another, smaller articulation motion involved that requires bushing compliance or spherical joints. A single rod end eliminates the torsion and maybe half of this little gremlin, but it takes rod ends at both ends to completely eliminate this one.
Norm