SPS 468x60 Banner
PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
Last Post 08 Dec 2011 05:39 AM by  boss002
Is anyone running a 94 Mustang GT in ESP ?
 78 Replies
Sort:
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 4 << < 1234 > >>
Author Messages
47CP
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2742


--
22 Oct 2008 09:55 AM
luke partridge wrote:

it certainly seemed really flat to me under load. the 1600/lb springs explain that.

It leans quite a bit....this is at HPT (no grip)

DaveW

SVT199
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:261


--
22 Oct 2008 10:11 AM

I have 1585# fronts and this is mine also.

luke partridge
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Oct 2008 10:28 AM

dave, what i'd give for that sort of lean...

 

right now my art school degree isn't really helping with my car set-up and mechanical understanding. if i had the cash i'd buy your car Mark, but going to art school didn't provide riches either. 

 

 

thanks for all the info though. it's great to learn all this stuff. 

DSPBMW
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Oct 2008 10:28 AM
Mark, just out of curiosity, how would the weight of a 351R engine compare to the 4v 4.6?
luke partridge
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
22 Oct 2008 10:32 AM
these super heavy fronts come from Griggs? i've gone through Maximum Motorsports for pretty much everything and the heaviest they have in non-coilover springs is the H & R super race set (1000-ish#). i also put in their torque arm, so i have to run their rear torque arm set. i wonder if going super stiff up front will upset how that works. again, i'm a moron at math and engineering though.
47CP
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:2742


--
22 Oct 2008 10:48 AM

luke partridge wrote:
these super heavy fronts come from Griggs? i've gone through Maximum Motorsports for pretty much everything and the heaviest they have in non-coilover springs is the H & R super race set (1000-ish#). i also put in their torque arm, so i have to run their rear torque arm set. i wonder if going super stiff up front will upset how that works. again, i'm a moron at math and engineering though.

Luke,

I think Marcus' car used a 5" diameter by 8" long stock car spring available from Coleman Racing or Lefthander CHassis. You combine it with a threaded adjustable spring seat and you get pretty cheap springs with corner weight adjustability. I don't remember for sure if this is the exact setup Marcus used, but it is what I used on the CP car back when it had stock springs and it works fine and gives a huge selection of springs.

Coleman doesn't have any good pictures of what I am talking about on thier website....I'll see if the paper catalog does when I get a minute....

HTH,

DaveW

SVT199
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:261


--
22 Oct 2008 12:32 PM

Marcus will know the exact weights but I know the problem with the 4V is the weight is higher on the motor even if it is a bit lighter overall.

DSPBMW wrote:
Mark, just out of curiosity, how would the weight of a 351R engine compare to the 4v 4.6?

ESP89
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:211


--
22 Oct 2008 09:11 PM

With the aluminum heads, the 351 is lighter and lower than the 4V. It seems like 20 lbs but it has been a long time since i did all the math.

I use basically a cirlce track set up as Dave said. My car is set up using natural frequency to find the required spring rates and then the bars are sized to get the roll I want at 1.3 G.

If you go with the torque arm, the the unsprung mass is a little higher than the five link so you would need a little higher spring rate.

The shocks are then valved to match the spirngs and the sprung and unsprung weights.

I hope that helps some.

luke partridge
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
23 Oct 2008 11:44 AM

thanks, that's interesting stuff. andy hohl explained the roll center with the torque arm to me recently. i thought it was a the way to go based on the road racers using it, but now i wonder if the steeda would have been a better bet.

 

how do you match the shocks to the springs and weights? i have koni DA's, and i think i've gotten them to a point where they seem to work okay, but i'm not exactly beating the world by any stretch. so it's more likely that i have them set completely wrong or could stand to get custom valved shocks that i don't need to monkey with. 

SerNick
Veteran Member
Veteran Member
Posts:1025


--
23 Oct 2008 12:10 PM
Luke - I highly suggest paying Marcus to do a set of non-adjustable Bilsteins for your car. I bet you could sell your Koni DA's to cover most/if not all of the price. I plan on doing this whenever I get around to actually finishing my 240z. 
ESP89
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:211


--
23 Oct 2008 03:59 PM

It is pretty simple. If you have the spring rates, motion ratios and weights you want the damper to provide about 67% of the critical damping.

ChrisS
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
14 Nov 2008 12:09 PM
Anyone care to share their alignment settings?
SVT199
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:261


--
14 Nov 2008 12:36 PM

Chris,

They really would not do you any good because each car is different based on the rest of the equipment and set up. With mine I actually ended up going from -4.5 degrees to -1.5 degrees when I stiffened the front. The braking was better and also the turn in.

ChrisS wrote:
Anyone care to share their alignment settings?

DSPBMW
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
14 Nov 2008 02:02 PM

Guys this isn't technically the right spot to ask, but I think it will serve my purpose....

I'm looking for a set of rear Koni shocks for this gen Mustang. I actually prefer ones that NEED a rebuild to reduce costs. I'm looking to have some things done to them by Koni so they will get a rebuild in the process anyway.

Thanks for any leads.

ESP89
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:211


--
15 Nov 2008 09:23 AM

I agree with Mark but you can have them. 3/16 total toe out, 2.75 deg of camber, 4.5 deg of castor.

Also, I am pretty sure I have an old set of Koni rears in the garage.

DSPBMW
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
15 Nov 2008 11:50 AM

Let me know Marcus.

My email is LonLB@hotmail.com

ChrisS
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
17 Nov 2008 06:28 PM

Some of you guys are running very high springs rates and have the front end setup pretty stiff so I could imagine you would need to tame the camber but going from -4.5 to -1.5 is pretty surprising.

I was actually interested in toe settings as well.

DSPBMW
New Member
New Member
Posts:


--
17 Nov 2008 10:56 PM

On second thought nevermind for now.

A secret sauce Bilstein that allows me to dump the seperator piston is in the works

SVT199
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:261


--
17 Nov 2008 11:23 PM
ChrisS wrote:

Some of you guys are running very high springs rates and have the front end setup pretty stiff so I could imagine you would need to tame the camber but going from -4.5 to -1.5 is pretty surprising.

I was actually interested in toe settings as well.

I originally ran -4.5 and about 3/16" toe out to try and help the turn in. As I decided to go with less camber I found the turn in improved a lot and I did not need that much toe out (added scrub to the front end). The brakes worked better and the tire was producing grip sooner than waiting for body roll to gain any useable grip. BUT this worked for me and my car and may not be for everyone.

ESP89
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:211


--
19 Nov 2008 12:28 PM
Good luck!
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Page 3 of 4 << < 1234 > >>


SPS 88x31 Button Woodhouse Motorsports
Vorshlag 88x31 Button G-Loc Button
Sunoco 88x31 Button

Advertise on SCCAForums.com and reach thousands of visitors per day!

SafeRacer FREE SHIPPING over $99

Shop for Pirelli tires at Tire Rack. blank



Sunoco Bottom 468x60 Banner