LT4Firehawk

Sorry, but the Mustang suspensions are way worse than an f-body. Even Roush (you know, the big Mustang tuner that really knows suspensions), will tell you that a Mustang suspension (front and rear) is not very good. As a matter of fact, I remember reading a quote when SVT came out with the IRS for the Cobra, and Roush said they should have focused on redoing the front suspension instead as it was even worse than the Mustangs already bad rear suspension setup. Also, if the f-body suspension is so bad, why did Ford basically use the same suspension design on their ALL NEW 05 Mustang?

You have an opinion that the f-body doesn't handle. Several of us have given you FACTS (i.e. comparitive lap times) about the handling ability and you still disagree. I would submit that maybe it's the driver and not the car that needs improving. I've given you comparison times from the same driver in different vehicles on the same track as a reference point, and you still question it. Personally, I think I'd rethink my opinion given the weight of material stacked against you on this one.

As to the suspension on later Mustangs being better than an f-body, I've yet to run across a Mustang (even with several thousand in mods) that can keep up with me in an f-body on a roadcourse. Even in race series that pit the two against each other, the Mustang must be given a significant weight advantage for it to be competitive. How does this equate to a Mustang having a better suspension than an f-body.

Heatmaker

I can make my car handle without a doubt... as all I do is pick on the WRXers ... but I refuse to believe that a F_body has an "advanced" suspension setup... when it really hasn't changed in over a decade. I refuse to believe a mustang has inferior suspension setup...blow for blow.. lets see facts and technical data... opinions won't do it.

Heatmaker

The only reason the F-body is so victorious on this site is because this is an F-bod site and most owners on here are in denial...

trackbird

Ok. If you look back over the years, there have been many cars in many series that were solid axle. V8 powered, rear wheel drive, stick axled cars have been run since almost the beginning of time in various race classes (69 Penske Camaro? It wasn't IRS, and they were ran for years before that one, just an example that many are familiair with.). Currently, American Sedan (Camaro's, Mustangs...many converted to the Camaro suspension), etc. Just because it has a solid axle does not mean it can't handle. Nascar, uses a solid axle and "it ain't drag racing". They even run a few road courses (no, I'm not a nascar fan). So, the solid axle cars are only for drag racing arguement is not holding much water so far.

IRS cars were designed as the "next step" in performance. At least that was originally their intention. Now, many IRS cars are extermely good at what they do. However, if you can control the vehicle dynamics and get enough rubber to work properly under a solid axle car, it is completely possible to run faster with a sorted solid axle car. Now, "like for like" (one shop builds 2 identical cars, one solid axle, one IRS), the IRS "should" be faster (it may or may not be in practice, but it should be).

And, my friends 1992 5.0 LX (being set up for American Iron racing) just came back from the chassis shop with a $3,000 bill for installing these (and other parts) to make it competitive in that class (it was essentially converted to a "Camaro suspension", or an approximation there of.).

Start here:

http://www.griggsracing.com/gr40scca2.html

This is a torque arm for a mustang. Funny that these seem to be needed for american sedan (roadracing class, or at least this is part of the A-Sedan setup).

http://www.griggsracing.com/ART/twintubeta.jpg

Their add on panhard rod:

http://www.griggsracing.com/ART/hdpanhard.jpg

If you consider a rear axle that is not "positively located" (those angled upper arms that Ford used cause more problems than they fix) as optimum, go right ahead. The rear suspension of a mustang binds at various points in its travel. This causes "snap oversteer" in road racing conditions. This is because when the suspension binds, it is similar to increasing the rear spring rate dramatically. So, they can be evil handling cars at the limit.

The Corvette comparison is reasonably valid because the cars are similar (similar, not exactly) in weight and hp. The other thing is that the F-body has room to stick a large amount of rubber under each corner. If you can keep that rubber working for you with proper shock valving and suspension tuning, you can generate similar performance numbers to the Corvette. Just having an IRS isn't always enough. Would I drive a Corvette, sure. It's easier to drive than an F-body (when turning the same lap times at a track), but the F-body can make similar performance with minimal work.

Also, the new 390 hp Cobra was not that much faster around a road course than a Camaro SS in the last test I saw. It was extremely close for a car with more hp, similar weight and larger brakes. Give the Camaro the few extra hp and the brakes, I'd bet they'd run nearly identical times, or close to it.

A flexible chassis is not "bad suspension", it's a bad chassis that has a good suspension (that may not be working optimally due to the chassis) that works pretty well, even in spite of its self. Based on what you just told us, a flexible chassis is designed for drag racing? That seems to be your arguement. One thing, any hp that is being used to twist the body is not being used to move the car. So, you are wasting hp twisting up the chassis, drag racing or not. It's easy to fix the chassis, a set of subframe connectors and a cage will cure almost all of it. The SFC's work decent, a cage works great, combine the two and you can fix most of the chassis problems with some work. And, if you are going road racing, you may as well have a cage and safety equipment to go with it.

Are they perfect? No, are they decent? Sure. Can they be made pretty damn good? Absolutely.

I think that you'll find that they are far better than you think. If your main reference is drag racing, then you need to take a good look at the other side before making generalizations. You might be surprised.

Anyway, that was entirely too long.

Have fun!

trackbird

Nope. I admitted that "prepped like for like" an F-body will have a hard time catching a WRX in an autocross setting. They are small, fast, and AWD. On a road course, we can make up most of the difference with hp. We may give up some grip in the corners, or not be any better than the WRX in corners, but we are a hell of a lot faster between corners. If it rains, forget it, the WRX will leave you for dead.

trackbird

http://www.griggsracing.com/people/jlindsey.html

Here is a Mustang that has (had) the typical problems for road racing until the conversion to the torque arm suspension mentioned above. This is the reputation that "superior suspension" has among road racers. When driven hard, it's "scary" and the handling can be described as "evil". I like Mustangs, I grew up in a Ford family. I wanted a 5.0 LX really bad when I was younger and almost bought more than a few. But, they need help to handle under track conditions.

LT4Firehawk

Once again, I've been giving you facts, YOU are the one giving opinions. But if you want some more, how about this:
First off, check out this thread:
http://frrax.com/rrforum/index.php?a...09&hl=mustang&
Then go to:
http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com
and look at the rules. Basically, they limit the f-body to 250HP, while the Mustang gets limited to 230HP. But the Mustang gets less power you say. Yes, but the next part is what really tells the tale. The f-body must meet a minimum weight of 3480lbs while the Mustangs only have to meet a 3150lb minimum weight. That's a 330lb difference for a mere 20HP.

As to the f-body suspension being "advanced", I never said it was state of the art. However, it is a very well designed suspension that works well in the real world given the limits of the original design/cost limits (live axle). As for it not having changed in over a decade, so what. If it works well, why change it? Also, just an FYI, but all the suspensions on these modern performance cars are basically the same as 30 years ago. The suspension on my 01 Z06 was basically the same exact design as on my 92 Vette, which was the same basic design as on a 63 Vette. Same thing with a Porsche 911. It's the same basic design as 30 years ago. Does that make those suspensions perform poorly? NO. Good suspension design has been known for quite a while, it's just a matter of many car companies didn't think the buying public would put up with a really good suspension in most cars due to the compromises (stiff ride). It's only in very recent years that they have been able to overcome the ride compromise with things like active suspension (which is really just a regular well designed performance supsension with special shocks).

Just to give you one more specific example. Shortly after I moved to Tulsa and started going to Hallett (our local roadcourse), I ended up running with a 98 Mustang Cobra. My car was lightly modded 95 Formula with 280RWHP with the only suspension mods being LCAs and an adjustable panhard rod. I had stock springs and lousy Decarbon shocks. His car was moderately modded, with about 325RWHP and with probably $2000 of suspension work. Also, this was my second time to this track, and he had been driving there for several years. What happened? He had more HP than me, so would walk away on the straights, but I would catch up and be right on his bumper in the corners. He just couldn't understand how someone with less experience at the track in a car with less HP could keep up with him lap after lap. This was one of the first times that I really realized how poor the Mustang suspension is.

Heatmaker

guys are right Camaro's have excellent suspension... PM if you want my bent panhard rod.. and blown Decarbons.... I'll throw in the flimsy Lca's in for free...

THe only true benifit of the L1E package are hte upgraded Bilstiens... which I admit do wake the cars capabilities up... but it doesn't bring them nearly to the levels you guys are boasting about.

... why is it that on this site people make the F-bodies out perform cars in areas where they shouldn't be?

I don't see how a Camaro could compete with a Rally designed car..in Rally Conditions (with all things considered). I refuse to believe a camaro could hang with an EVO, or STI on the appropriate track. These cars are designed for corners... Camaro's are not... I don't understand how the frame of the camaro can be a strong point... if it takes so many upgrades to keep them from twisting... while other cars inthe same league can do the same without the worries. I'm done with the mustang Vs. Camaro issue... because if I brought that topic up on the Mustang board it would be just the opposite being said. But common... How is a C5 a noteworthy comparrison to a 4th gen in handeling??? with motors aside...I just don't see it happening..not with the Frame and suspension setup the Vette is built on.


I understand completely that people race solid rear axle cars and win... but those cars are in races up against other solid rear axle cars... Those are bad comparisons... esp. Nascaar.. .where as well all know those cars are designed to turn left... not like thier under Leguna seca conditions. If you want to make an impressive comparrison in acutal racing... it would make more sense to talke about GT series races... where "handeling" is necessary...

trackbird

Decarbons are garbage. We were discusing the suspension design, not the exact parts on the car. The design is valid, the parts are "OEM" (good enough, but can be improved).

Bent PHB's are caused by abuse, or hitting a curb or something. The LCA's are no more flimsy than most of what is under your beloved Mustang, trust me, I've removed several of them. As for the 1LE cars and Bilstiens, that's kinda funny since they got Koni DA's (a few years used a custom shock built by decarbon, but no bilstiens) and different springs, sway bars, rear LCA bushings, front control arm bushings and such. Yup, it was just like a V6.

I'll tell you what. Since I'm getting tired of typing. I'll send you to many articles about Mustang suspension on a "Suspension" forum. This is not a Mustang board, nor is it a Camaro board, there are guys who own everything on there, Viper, Mustang, Camaros, Acura NSX, Corvette, kit cars and about anything else (lotus, ferrari, etc).

Start with these:

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/sho...ustang+binding

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/sho...ustang+binding

http://www.evolutionmsport.com/index.php (sorry, manufacturers link)

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/sho...ustang+binding

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/sho...ng+roll+center

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/sho...ustang+binding

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/sho...ng+roll+center

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/sho...ng+roll+center

http://corner-carvers.com/forums/sho...ng+roll+center

You'll notice that your car with great suspension seems to have many issues. Lowering the rear seems to screw it up. Guys try to remove one of the upper control arms in the rear to reduce the binding. They add panhard bars and torque arms to make it behave, etc. The suspension on those cars has some serious issues for performance handling. As stated, this is not a Mustang board, it's a suspension board, mostly frequented by racers, many of who are engineers.

That should get you warmed up. If the car is so good, why is everyone making (and using) parts to convert it to a F-body style suspension? Nobody makes parts to convert an F-body to a Mustang style suspension (and add the upper control arms and such, why not?).

You can keep argueing, but not with me.

Have fun.

wbna0149

Trackbird its not worth it.
I just let my trophies and titles tell the story . I know there are some fast mustangs out there , But when they run slalom or road course and get beat , they always say their set up is for 1/4 mile only.

I think the best one was a Scoobie driver that got beat and said he was set up for road rallies only. I guess he forgot too take off his stickers.

trackbird

I know.

stereomandan

Very good post. People just seem to think that WRX's are so incredible. They are very nice cars, but the suspension is fairly soft from the factory, and the tires are very narrow.

It does not take much to outhandle one. Like WOT said, in many cases, stock the F-body is faster than the WRX.

For the original question. I would recommend a large front sway bar, and good 275/40/17" tires on all 4 corners. I think these changes would take you out of the stock class though. So the best option would be VERY sticky 245 series tires if you want to stay stock. Shocks would also be a big help, but it's harder to change quickly and should be setup to the springs that you eventually plan to go with.

In the end, it boils down to the driver in MANY cases.

Dan

Norm Peterson

I'll grant you that the rallye orientation of the WRX has probably resulted in better chassis structure. Being newer on the scene than the ponycars, there would be no excuse if that were not the case.

But I think you need to read up on a little automotive history. The F-bodies (and the Mustangs) were heavily involved in road racing when they were first introduced back in the mid-60's. Trans-Am racing, to be specific, which is still a stick-axle series. I'll give you that ponycars might be out of their element on the unpaved sections of a performance rallye, even though that's outside your efforts at downplaying their paved road course capabilities.

No big-block options early held down dragstrip participation somewhat, and they never fit within the rules structure for NASCAR Grand National cars either (FYI - that's what they were called back then, now it's known as Nextel Cup).

With that out of the way, slaloms favor the narrower vehicle, potentially giving up some sweeper performance in exchange. Then again, lifting the inside rear wheel clear off the ground does suggest that there's a band-aid of some sort being applied (and that an optimum solution cannot be achieved without a major redesign of the whole car, to think outside the Solo II Stock/Street Prepared/Street Touring/Street Mod/Prepared box).

The next thing you need to learn is that a mere list of features does not guarantee a competitive car. Not even a good one. Given reasonably smooth pavement, IRS does not inherently hold all the cards, and a badly-done IRS hardly holds any. You have to tune the whole mess, and that's more than just spring rates, bars, and shock calibrations. Look a little deeper into the discussions of the Mustang IRS re: handling for a wider base of opinion than just mine. Arguably, a well-developed stick axle car can be easier to drive than an IRS car, since the stick axle rear is generally more predictable (the two rear wheels do not follow separate camber and toe paths unless something is dreadfully wrong, in which case you have much more urgent worries than bad alignment).

Don't get me started about various stick axle suspension arrangements. The rear end of the car in my sig is a near-twin of the Fox and SN95 Mustang setups, the main difference being that my rear springs sit on top of the axle tubes instead of on the LCA's. And after 3 seasons of auto-x I have a fair idea what it's going to do and where its limits are. That I could climb into an ESP Firebird of roughly similar weight, power, and ride stiffness on very short notice (due to an equipment failure on my own car that occurred post-tech) and turn times that were relatively better than what I'd have done in my own car should tell you something about the predictability of the TA/PHB arrangement. Certainly in auto-x, predictability goes to driver confidence, which is sort of synonymous with quicker runs.

Norm

mitchntx

Good discussion ...

How can I make my Trans AM ride like a Caddy while out handling an STi and all for under $1000?

trackbird

You should probably take that one to corner carvers.....