How would you adjust pinion angle with this thing or is it set statically somehow? It essentially replaces the 3rd link...interesting at $800. Anyone using one of these?

 

Why would you want to do that? I'm very, VERY familiar with torque arms as that's what 3rd and 4th gen F-bodies use (and I've own both, current have a 2001 Camaro that's my track car).

I mean, unless you want to add a bunch of weight, and unsprung weight at that.... A 3rd link does the same job, in a much more compact arrangement. In fact I wish I could switch my Camaro to a 3 link....

 

Thanks for the input Sam. I've also owned an 02' Camaro which had the torque arm setup but I never changed the suspension on that car other than swapping the dampers. I've done much more with the mustang and have always been curious about the griggs setup and why they run the torque arm as opposed to a 3rd link.

Yeah, it does seem like it would add a substantial amount of unsprung weight. Some of the higher HP S197 owners on shelby forums have swapped them into their cars and have positive things to say about it.

 

I think they do it to be different.

 

Well, they also have the griggs rear coilover setup so that's likely where the satisfaction is originating.

 

Maybe.... But I think it's not even that, it's just that they are using good shocks. But frankly they even go against the grain there and use a shock not meant for the car but a universal type race shock as opposed to the one specific for the car. And the fact it's coil-over vs. coil on axle really has no effect on anything other than it looks cool and gives ride height adjustment (but you can get that to with weight jackers). The springs are so far outboard, and so close to where they'd be with "coil-overs" it's not having much change on wheel rate vs. spring rate. Not like they can run a lot softer (and therefore lighter) rear spring doing what they do. We can use a 2.5" coil-over spring on the stock axle location right now if we want.

 

I've heard them tell customers (on forums) to 'flip the coilover upside down' because the mounting position can cause tire interference in the upright position. That's actually the 'preferred' setup. Not making much sense...

I'm on the fence now between Koni's and a coilover setup. Is it true you can run a softer spring on a coilover allowing better ride w/o increasing the wheel rate?

 

Oh brother....

Bert, let me be really blunt--cause that's what it's gonna take. Watch my video's, look at what I can do and the g-numbers I can pull vs. what they claim (and I'm not on a nice smooth skidpad). And I'm doing it on small rims.

Why inverted? You have a little less unsprung weight that way, and because they use the shock they do, you can turn it upside down.

And spring rate and wheel rate are linked. The ratio might be different if the spring is in a different location, but on the rear it's not tangibly changed anyway.

 

Lol, I'm listening Sam, I'm listening to you! I'm going to give you a ring in a few weeks to discuss all this over the phone.

 

I'm going to guess that it's because Griggs has a good bit of experience with the earlier Mustang platforms, where a TA is a significant "step up" from either leaf springs or the Fox/SN95 converging (triangulated) 4-link. GM's G-body - think '79 Malibu here ↓↓↓ -shares this arrangement. At any rate, Griggs already have the fit-up to the 8.8 and drive shaft and ground clearance issues covered, so half the design job was already done before they even looked at an S197.


A TA has at most only one compliant bushing (at the chassis side) and has less vertical force at the chassis end than an upper 3rd link carries axially. IOW, there is better control of axle rotation about the Y-axis (think side view, axle centerline, and pinion angle change here), so it may be a little easier to make a TA more wheelhop resistant.


FWIW, torque arm cars are also quite easy to drive hard, assuming that the TA isn't too short and puts you into "brake hop".


Norm