If my thinking is right, the only time a strut bar makes any sense is if lateral force can be transmitted thru the strut ie if the strut acts as a suspension member rather then just a damper. So in the rear on the live axle a strut bar makes no sense at all. Is the front of a Mustang a Mac Strut?
The chassis in a Fox Body Mustang is very flexible, MM's/Kenny Brown's strut tower brace not only connects the strut towers, but also triangulates them to the firewall.
I removed a Kenny Brown strut tower brace and K-Member brace before selling my '92 LX Notch. It had welded subframe connectors, and I still noticed a difference in steering response after removing those two items. Not scientific, I know, but my personal experience.
Just noting again, great thread. I've done some more research and am quite satisfied with the results.
One last question, how light can they get? I keep hearing 2700 gutted?
Also, in regards to the uni-body construction, besides the seats leaning inward are there any more signs I can look for when buying? Tragically all the fox mustang threads I've been digging through focus on straight line speed (maybe I'm visiting the wrong ones), so far you guys have been the best info on making it go around corners nicely.
Between these two sites alone I've got great resources:
http://www.stranoparts.com/
http://www.maximummotorsports.com/
(Links added in case someone searches later for this topic.)
dj06482 wrote: The chassis in a Fox Body Mustang is very flexible, MM's/Kenny Brown's strut tower brace not only connects the strut towers, but also triangulates them to the firewall.
Is that a front brace?
In reply to ls1fiero:
Well, now you're talking about two different things. 1) a strut tower brace, which would be up front and 2) a shock tower brace, which would be out back.
Starting with the rear, there's just NO lateral load introduced by the shocks that you'd be bracing against. The lateral load in a stock suspended fox-chassis Mustang is resisted by the upper control arms [poorly] and the shocks have a pillow bushing mount on top. Even if the axle shifts several inches laterally, the shocks won't be introducing any lateral force at their upper mount, and even if it did, resisting that force wouldn't affect the effectiveness of the suspension or dampers.
The only reason I could see to add a brace there is simply to stiffen up the unibody (at a location that's relatively irrelevant to what the suspension is doing), at which point there's no reason it would have to be a brace between the shock towers outside of convenience.
For the front, smarter people than I have gone round and round about STBs on Corner-carvers , and the net result that I got from this thread (http://www.corner-carvers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=448) was that, in regards to a foxbody, 2 pc braces are worthless, and triangulated braces are basically good at reducing NVH as well as some flexing between the chassis and strut towers under hard braking (but not between the towers themselves).
I also think this is really cool...
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/howto/15518_maximum_motorsports_suspension_kit/index.html
http://www.maximummotorsports.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1_67&products_id=1052
There is a PDF in the link for the the Motor Trend Slalom where a 5.0lx with the Road and Track box placed 3rd. Probably more impressive was it's $/MPH figure of 110 vs 2,203 for the winner....
I'm pretty stoked to get to work now....
Can the Kenny Brown Jacking Rail stiffing kit be combined with Maximum's subframe connectors? My thoughts are that I'd be wise to use Maximum's connectors with their torque arm kit, and then later add the KB stuff to that. Any reason why that wouldn't work?
93EXCivic wrote:dj06482 wrote: The chassis in a Fox Body Mustang is very flexible, MM's/Kenny Brown's strut tower brace not only connects the strut towers, but also triangulates them to the firewall.Is that a front brace?
Yes.
In reply to ReverendDexter: I can't see a reason to disagree on the rear suspension. Always just assumed that big lateral loads could cause the shocks to flex the shock towers. Again I am no engineer, just a guy who has lots of open track miles in a Fox Body. but on the front I would think that the point of the front brace would be to keep the upper mount of the struts from moving around. Not sure what you mean by the relationship of the chassis to the strut towers as these are unit body cars. Bottom line is that with these braces and the welded subframe connectors, my unit body never showed signs of chassis fatigue. Even after the 441 rwhp motor...
OK back to this thread.
As the car is an 86 the X2 balljoints do not fit.
How does modifying the front lower control arm to relocate the ball joint higher by about 3/4 inch and moving it back 1/16 of an inch to gain a touch more caster sound?
Feedback very welcome
I can't imagine there's anything wrong with moving the balljoint up slightly since there are plenty people out there running taller ballpoints in Fox mustangs. Seems to me like you end up in the same place they do
aussiesmg wrote: How does modifying the front lower control arm to relocate the ball joint higher by about 3/4 inch and moving it back 1/16 of an inch to gain a touch more caster sound?
Wouldn't moving the lower balljoint rearward decrease caster? I.e., make the strut more vertical? Intuitively, 1/16" sounds too little to make much difference, but I defer to others on that one.
I'm actually more confused by the notion of modifying the control arm to raise or lower the balljoint. The issue the X2 ball joints address is the relationship between the spindle/strut and the pivot in the ball joint. There's nothing you can do to the control arm to move that point. You either need a ball joint with a taller body, or a strut with more length between the spindle and ball joint mounting.
By moving the ball joint rearward it will actually move the mounting point rearward but the hub/spindle end of the control arm forward. I am only seeking a couple of degrees and 1/16" over a strut length would be close to that.
I was under the assumption that the control arm mount is lowered when the springs are shorter, thereby changing the angle of the arm to lean down towards the center of the car, by raising the ball joint it should re-level the control arm. Improving the bumpsteer problems
In reply to aussiesmg:
I'm beginning to suspect I may have gone off half-cocked (again)...
Fox-body control arms as I know them have two pivots on one axis at the chassis and one ball joint at the strut. The strut end is the hub end. I'm utterly lost as to how moving the ball joint rearward will move the hub end forward... Can you tell what I'm misunderstanding from that?
I'm also wondering whether I'm just misunderstanding your proposed solution for height. As I understand it, the X2 ball joints achieve what you're talking about by having an increased body height from where they mount to the strut to the center of the pivot. If they were just taller from the pivot to where the control arm mounts, they would have no effect.
It sounds like you're trying to achieve the same thing at the other end of the control arm, by raising the inner pivot axis instead of lowering the outer. But you can't do that on the arm; it has to be done on the chassis.
The visual angle of the arm itself is of no importance beyond what it tells you about the relationship of the pivots at each end. The functional control arm is defined by the straight line between the centers of the inner and outer pivots.
Apologies if this turns out to be a treatise on how badly I've misunderstood your plan...
My modification is at the outer ball joint mount only, I have no plan on modifying anything at the inner mount. Your first post was correct.
I think I am seeing what your point is at the outer/ball joint pivot though. This is why I posted this for feedback.
As for the caster. If you move the pivot/mounting point rearwards on the arm, the body of the arm moves forward around the change in the pivot/mounting point. Damn, I wish I could show you what I mean in person
Aftermarket a arms have this improvement but do not have spring perches nor do they have a challenge friendly price
In reply to aussiesmg:
Hrm. I think I have another one of those observations that may clear something up, but I'm not sure whether that something is about the suspension or about how I'm misunderstanding something...
If we're strict about terminology, when you say "If you move the pivot/mounting point rearwards on the arm, the body of the arm moves forward around the change in the pivot/mounting point", I get confused because I tend to want to use the chassis as the primary reference frame (geometrically speaking), and the control arms are not going to pivot fore or aft relative to the chassis based on what you do with the ball joint within the control arm. Moving the ball joint in the arm will only change the fore/aft or in/out location of the bottom of the strut.
The chassis defines:
* The location of the inner pivot axis of the control arm
* The location of the top of the strut.
The control arm defines:
* The fore/aft location of the bottom of the strut relative to the chassis
* The length of the arc the bottom of the strut will follow about the control arm's axis
The strut defines:
* The line between the ball joint on the control arm and the top strut mount on the chassis
* The height above the balljoint of the spindle (in combination with the height of the ball joint from pivot upwards to strut mount)
Caster is defined by the relationship of the top strut mound and the ball joint. The strut connects those dots, but it won't affect them.
I can't tell whether I'm helping or whether I'm just muddying things up by foisting my geometric framework on you... Perhaps someone else will put it more clearly soon...
You'll need to log in to post.
