Norm Peterson

UGH. Not. At. All.

The sometimes-evil twin of anti-squat is anti-lift, and some cars (*cough* . . . LS-powered 4th Gen F-bodies . . . *cough*) are much worse in this respect than others.


It occurred to me only late last night that the S197's OE A/S might be as low as it is in order to be able to use a more rearward brake balance and either shorten the stopping distance a little or help satisfy the applicable FMVSS (this might also help explain some observations concerning relative pad wear rates). The various crutches that have you essentially throwing away some rear brake capability so that you can have more anti-squat works fine for the dragstrip, but isn't necessarily the hot tip for a daily driver.


Norm

corruptor

Thanks - I'll look into LCAs and then progress down the line to UCAs if that doesn't help. I do plan to attend a couple road courses and non-competitive autocross events, but it would be down the line (for as long as I can hold out).


Not looking to track a new car, as the last couple times I did that (Sentra SE-R, Honda S2000) I felt like the car wore down way too fast and started developing odd creaks, rattles, etc. I'll probably stick to the occasional weekend mountain run at a 6/10ths pace. Sounds like there is a tradeoff in stiffer polyurethane bushings, in that front/rear acceleration is better managed, but handling balance is compromised. I prefer terminal understeer over even slight oversteer, as it is way more predictable. I noticed the Roush LCAs state they are "rubber bushings" - isn't that essentially the same as OEM?