Ford Mustang Owners' Club of Finland (FMOC) ry

Auto on ollut jo 22 vuotta alkuperäisellä alustalla ja se pitäisi uusia. Mitä alustaan kannattaa laittaa kun haen tyylikkyyttä ja urheiluhenkeä sekä hyvää ajettavuutta ?

Aika paljon, iskarit(riippuu missä kunnossa),jouset,puslat ja jos vielä haluaa parantaa niin subframe connectorit asentaa ja camber/caster-plates(saa säätää camperit kohdalleen)

Nuo tehty omaan autoon jossa oli -79:n vakioalusta rälläkkäjousilla, muuttui aika paljon parempaan suuntaan.

janneGT85 kirjoitti:Auto on ollut jo 22 vuotta alkuperäisellä alustalla ja se pitäisi uusia. Mitä alustaan kannattaa laittaa kun haen tyylikkyyttä ja urheiluhenkeä sekä hyvää ajettavuutta ?

Tuolta vois löytyä jotain vinkkejä http://www.hhp.fi

http://www.mustangclub.fi/board/viewtopic.php?t=2161
http://www.mustangclub.fi/board/viewtopic.php?t=2664
http://www.mustangclub.fi/board/viewtopic.php?t=2410
http://www.mustangclub.fi/board/viewtopic.php?t=1284
http://www.mustangclub.fi/board/viewtopic.php?t=460

Sitten vaan Slalom Cuppiin ja ratapäiville vakoilemaan niitä nopeimpia autoja ja kyselemään budjetteja. Vähän sama homma se foksissakin on kuin vanhoissa, kun lähdetään niin huonosta lähtökohdasta, niin euroja solahtaa kun tehdään vähän parempi, vielä parempi, ei nyt enää niin pa..., ihan kohtuullinen, melkein hyvä, nopea mutta kamala, jne.

Maximum Motorsport ja Griggs ovat parhaimmassa huudossa osatoimittajista. Alustassa on vaan se, että molempia päitä on syytä upgreidata samaan tahtiin ja mielellään saman valmistajan osakokonaisuuksilla.

Onkohan Steedan 5-link mistään kotoisin?

Lauri kirjoitti:Onkohan Steedan 5-link mistään kotoisin?

Lainaus muualta:
Originally posted by Steve Bassen:
Excellent remains to be proven since I have yet to see any reputable publications publish a real review of it, or even hearing a track report on it on a place such as this.

you are an honest man.



Quote:
HOWEVER, we can certainly say it's at least very good, given that:

1) It was designed by a real engineer and not some marketing major at Steeda

although this may save it from an untested trip to the rubbish heap, it does not prove to me that its "very good"


Quote:
6) I find it hard to believe that a parallel 4-link design can be screwed up by someone that knows wtf they're doing

DANGER will robinson...DANGER...

Before i start, let me say that the four link is bound to be massively better than the stock style converging link mess, if for no other reason, than it wont have non-linear roll stiffness (bind induced.

I am familiar with Rob's "incident" ...mainly through SKOD (who's friendly with Rob) but never saw the broken link. Although i can understand the once bitten twice shy component to this, if i had to hazard a guess, i would look to a history of break hop and a really old torque arm. Lest racers out there be afraid of TAs because of this story, there are a number of bomb proof ways to replace the front Torque Arm tab, that the Griggs boys probably run on their own cars...if you want to chat about em, start a new thread.


The big problem with a mass production four link is that its, well, mass production.

More so than any of the other replacement rear suspensions out there, four links are massively fussy about set up and tuning.

4lnks, we can all agree derive forward bite from a combination of anti-squat (usually) and a longitudinal IC defined by the relationship of the links, its relationship to the wheelbase (or CG to be more accurate). The intersection point, and therefore forward bite, are a function of the angularity of the links, which in turn is a function of the mounting locations, their adjustability (if any) and their lengths.

Typical race car four links (and three lengths for that matter since as someone already correctly pointed out they are for all intents and purposes identical geometrically) are built to mount the links up near the cg (longitudinal) and have very low angularity in the lower arms, and some modest angularity in the upper arms to provide for foraward bite.

Most set ups (transAm any way) actually run parallel links to eliminate roll steer, AND have supremely limited bump travel. They are predictibly lacking in forward bite, and run underslung wattslinks to manage roll couple in concert with HUGE springs to keep them off the bump stops (they make downforce) To make the things work, they have to prevent ride height change.


The combination of limited travel and long arms is important because the aformentioned IC location, (critical to forward bite) moves around like crazy in bump and droop with short arms (ie the steeda ones). Without adjustment potential in the upper arms mounting locations, the setup is fixed....there is not a user friendly way to adjust the forward bite to match the ride height of the car it is to be installed on.

There just isnt any way to package a 4lnk with adequate length AND adequate adjustment AND adequate IC control in a fox chassi without cutting the floor.

This is why the TA/PB is so attractive as a bolt on. They are largely unaffected my ride height, they load the tire uniformly as a function of the axle torque reaction, and do so regardless of roll angle or travel.

Im not a huge fan of the griggs front bushing/tab arrangement, but it is quiet and inexpensive to maintain.

Im not a fan at all of the MM rear mounts at the diff, but they deserve credit for making a decent part that is NOT a baldface copy of the Griggs piece. They deserve credit for attempting to deal with the exhasit clearance issue on the crossmember,a nd for their front mount.

If i had to buy a torque arm for a race car today, and couldnt go throught the body, i would start with aGriggs unit for a TA girdle, and i would lop off the front and make my own mounts...making one from scratch just aint worth the hassle...

If cutting the body were legal, i would wind up with a decopled torque arm (ala dirt car) both of which were used with good success on the Kendall championship/cleansweep car before SCCA caught on, and outlawed the extra spring...

these combinations work the best because since they are less reliant on ride height, allow a softer wheel rate ( in bump) and more compliance over crappy surfaces...the advantage that Kendall had.

I should make clear that this is not meant as a dig against Rob, who is among a few true enthusiasts inside FOMoCo whoa re actually interested in the aftermarket.

done rambling...no proof reading...please send editorial comments to your mom.