Pulled the rear shocks off my Mustang last night to get the rear most exhaust tubing installed (Dynomax kit) and I have the car up and supported in the rear by putting jack stands under the rear axle. When I had pulled the second shock off (Quads already pulled so I'm talking the vertical "normal" shocks) the axle dropped a good inch when I got the bolt out of the second shock. The shocks were completely extended, apparently, which seems odd since the weight of the rear was still on the suspension out back.
Is this normal? It seems odd to me. The shocks are previous owner installed Monroe Sensatracs which I know are not impressive awesome items but I'd like to not throw shocks on at this time if I don't need to (want to do a full workover in the next 12 or 18 months or so and go with Bilsteins but do it all at once). But if this is going to cause me issues I'd change these out for something else for the time being.
Thoughts?
I have some stock ones on the shelf, let me go measure their length. (97 cobra parts)
edit
measured it, from where the rubber seats to the car to the center of the eye is 20.5" on the stock parts.
Honestly, I couldnt speak to it as I have never had stock springs on the car, but unless you are getting weird feelings that the car is topping out I wouldnt be concerned.
They are the travel limit, the control arms dont limit it and the springs just sit in there.
That's normal. Most coil spring solid axle cars use the shocks to limit droop.
Awesome timing - I was just going to ask this question about another car with a live rear axle!
So the jackstands are under the axle, supporting the weight of the car, and when you pulled the shock bolt out, it was in tension? That would be wrong-it would also ride like smashed E36 M3. If the jackstands are under the body, with the suspension in full droop and the axle drops when the bolt is pulled, that would be normal.
every shock i've ever changed on the rear of any of my cars with a solid rear axle (which is pretty much every car i've ever owned, except for a few random fwd cars) has been like that.. in fact, i had to get 3" shock extensions when i swapped multi leaf springs into my 71 Nova and wanted to keep the stock lower shock plates..
In reply to Streetwiseguy:
The rear suspension on an SN95 (or any Fox-type Ford) is not normal and should be considered weird E36 M3. At least in my book. Then again, I've owned three RWD cars and each had suspension oddities; Plymouth with torsion bars up front, Capri with kind of bizarro front suspension, and now this.
pres589 wrote:
In reply to Streetwiseguy:
The rear suspension on an SN95 (or any Fox-type Ford) is not normal and should be considered weird E36 M3. At least in my book. Then again, I've owned three RWD cars and each had suspension oddities; Plymouth with torsion bars up front, Capri with kind of bizarro front suspension, and now this.
what's not "normal" about a triangulated 4 link rear suspension that uses the upper links to keep the axle centered under the car and uses the shocks as a travel limiter?
the Fox/SN95 Mustang rear suspensions will seem "normal" to anyone that plays with mid and full size rwd GM and Ford cars built since the mid 60's. Ford did get a little crazy in the 70's and put all the links out by the wheel with the upper links pointing in towards the center of the car and some full size GM cars in the 60's only had a single offset upper link and a panhard bar...
In reply to novaderrik:
"what's not "normal" about a triangulated 4 link rear suspension that uses the upper links to keep the axle centered under the car and uses the shocks as a travel limiter? "
Shocks as the limiter may be normal, and upon reflection doesn't seem horrible as long as they aren't limited so short as to be a problem. The rest of it just seems sloppy when you consider the axle is in bind and relying on bushing compliance as soon as it moves vertically. Bushing compliance and the general design of the thing then allows for quite a bit of horizontal movement in normal driving. And then to stop wrap up there's a second set of shocks...
Panthers got a Watts link, why didn't the Fox? I'd take leaf springs over this mess.
The shocks have to limit travel to keep the springs in place. Some lowering springs will fall out even with the shocks in place, unless the shocks have shorter travel. Yep, the bushing compliance wasn't the greatest idea for a rear suspension, but the bean counters thought it was good enough. Now change the upper links for a single third link and add a Watts link or panhard bar and the rear suspension works pretty good, this is what I did on the 67 El Camino I had. Much better than the converging four link. Although people have made the stock setup work quite well with aftermarket parts ( www.scandc.com has some good stuff, along with Hotchkis and Global West to name a few).
The quad shock stuff (which GM didn't use), was even used by Ford on the Mustang II, which had rear leaf springs. Interesting that they stayed with the quad shocks all the way to 2004. With a good set of shocks (Bilstein, Koni, etc), you can get rid of the extra quad shocks with no wheel hop issues. Did this on my 03 Mustang GT when I added a Roush suspension kit.
In reply to 81cpcamaro:
My plan, as funding and time and etc etc allows, is for installation of a Maximum Motorsports torque arm setup with a panhard bar. Bilstein HD's and 1 inch lowering springs with a rate that's appropriate for a street driven cloth top to round out the changes. Front is about to get '03 Cobra control arms.
But there's other more pressing items to deal with on the car and I've got a number of other things to deal with.
Good choice on the torque arm, I really wanted to do that to my Mustang as well, but didn't have the funds to (still was making payments on the car).
