Check it out. It's our suspension on a mustang! One thing different... smaller torque arm . GM really had their priorities F'd up when they dropped the f-body. It should have taken a year off for a major redesign but just because you're being out sold 2-1 doesn't mean give them that third of your sales! If Ford can keep things rolling AND the GTO could be imported then I'm sure they could have designed the f-body to appeal to a larger crowd. Oh, and what happened to the large rear wheel driver cars... yup, only Ford .

http://www.musclemustangfastfords.co...403mm_mustweb/
I quote from the above source;
A state-of-the-art solid rear axle was designed for the V-6 and GT models. It's a three-link setup (two lower control arms, one upper) with a Panhard bar standard. The GT gets a stabilizer bar, but the base model does not.

 

At least all the F-bodies, including V6 models, got stabilizer bars at least

In any case, taht isn't like our suspension much. As stated, thats a 3-link setup.

Oh, and that's a 9", ours are wimpy 7.5" lol

 

not quite, but they basically have a BMW 3-series front suspension.

 

Yeah, but is it a 7.5" rear?

 

It's basically the same ideal as our rearend.
Shocks are more outward. 8.8 rear instead of crap 10 bolt.

The 06 Cobra is gonna be off the chain!
I can hear the darkside calling me. And the faint sound of bassani duals coming to life. I will miss you guys though.

 

Thats not anywhere close to looking like a Ford 9". A 9" does not have a removable rear inspection cover.

The floating swaybar centermounts are interesting. This will allow better freedom of suspension movement. Also the reverse design with the links attached to the axle are better on unsprung weight.

Shock are mounted outboard for better control. Does increase unsprung weight, but a fair tradeoff for better damper control of the solid rear axle. This is good positioning for coilover rear conversion.

That upper 3rd link (torque arm) is too short to be reliable. The bushings were designed for movement freedom so things wouldn't bind, however, the amount of force and twist on them under daily cornering,acceleration, and braking will take its toll on these bushing fast. Bad design here.

 

Here's a 9"- this is my 1/2ton chev worktruck. The beauty of a Ford 9" has always been the strength the non removable cover has on the carrier bearings.

ps- this is also a Currie 9" rearend with a Detroit Locker. You can notice the "V" cuts and strength welds where the axle tubes meet the diff.- heavy duty.

 

Actually going to a 3-link is a very common upgrade for Stangs when they go road racing....

But what is with the non-rigid mount torque arm on the axle end of things? Or am I not seeing that correctly.... I mean that just flat won't work properly if it isn't rigid on the axle end with freedom of movement forward and back on the car end of it.....

 

That's not a torque arm at all. It pivots at the front and rear mounting, it resembles a standard 4 link where the upper links also center the rear end. But in this case the single upper link can not control the side load, thus the need for a panhard bar.

IF that was a torque arm, and if it was really THAT short there will be a ton of rear end lift and a butt load of axle hop under braking. Ideally you would want a long torque arm for braking comfort and a short torque arm (but not that short) for accelerating. I know the mustang guys like to switch over to a real torque arm for road racing.

As a final note this is not a torque arm rear suspension like ours. I kind of like the idea, but not enough to become a ford guy.

 

" GM really had their priorities F'd up when they dropped the
f-body"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dunno like i kinda agree and dis agree with that statement.. cause its rare to find our cars which means not everyone has an oppurtunity to have one

 

You are correct that this is not a "torquearm" but it does control axle torque- Hence why above I labeled it correctly when I refered to it as a 3rd link. I just listed (TQarm) next to it so others knew what was being referenced.

A TQarm style link has a solid mount joint on the diff that will cause the arm itself to push upward on acceleration, and downward on braking. This setup pulls back and forth, not up and down on the chassis. The difference bettween this and a 4link Vette setup is the Vette is IRS and doesn't rely on the upper links to control diff torque onto the chassis. The IRS is mounted solid to the chassis via several mounts to avoid prolonged wear on a single link bushing. Then the outer four link bars control caster only, and not pinion angle.

The Vette relies on camber links inboard to contol side to side of the wheel assembies. This setup uses to different mount points that affect rear roll center. One is the 3rd link pivot on the diff, the other is the panhardrod. The panhard is the superior positioner and llimits the 3rd link form any side to side so the roll center thus is determined by the dominate panhard rod- Thats why they went to a panhard rather than a spread mount 3rd link (3 mount pionts- triangular positioning. This would incorporate two fronts on one rear instead of the shown one front one rear)

The trouble I see is the shortness of the 3rd link. It is not a parallel swing length with the LCA's. Thus it has to rotate the diff rearward, then frontward in a compression travel arc. If they lengthened the 3rd link to the same length as the LCA's, then install a soild rodend on the diff side, This would give a very pecision setup causing very little change in the any instant center of gravity front to rear, or rear to front- very much like the Vettes. They are just trying to do this with one short radius link and two rubber bushings- thats were the bad comes in. The bushings will be under constant strain and wheel base will move back and forth constantly under travel(especially as the bushing wear)

 

Also, A paralell 4-link does still need a panhard rod to center the axle. A triangular 4-link does not.

 

I imagine Griggs or Kenny Brown will quickly solve any issues with the short 3 link design. It's a much better starting point than the previous mustangs suspension IMO.
I imagine the 06 Cobra will get an IRS setup. I wonder if it will be an improvement of their current offering.

 

You can get an aftermarket housing with a removable plate in the back. As far as stocker stuff though, you're right

 

I don't understand how the center(upper) link
controls the pinion angle.
Is there some other restraint on suspension motion,
that is not obvious?

 

Lower control arms.

 

Those are called "Track9". They are strickly sftermarket produced and are not as heavy duty- made stickly for circletrack, not any type of drag racing.

 

well, technically, the Camaro is coming back in 2007.
And in the latest super chevy (or hi pro, one of the two) they say the 7.5 10-bolt can handle over 400hp at the rear wheels if it is built with aftermarket parts. Im not planning on having more than that at the rear..

$750 to build 10-bolt
$1600 12 bolt or 9-inch
guess which one im doing

 

A good locker for the 10-bolt is darn near going to cost you that- then you need the ring and pinion, the beefed up axles, bearings, cover, and then weld the housing for strength. Its going to cost you alot more than $750 to build it right with yourself doing the labor even. That is- if you are truely planning on it lasting with 400HP for any length of time.

As for the 9", the one I have pictured above was build 8 years ago for $2450+tax with moderate goodies to handle everyday 300 hp and heavy loads. Vehicle weight is what mainly kills rearends, not HP.

 

well, i have a friend of the family who runs a race shop. Eaton posi with, installation kit, ring and pinion, beefed up axels, cover, and bearings, will hold up me fine... and cost me between $700-$800.

also, why would i want a locker? a locker spins both tires when one tire is loose
limited slip spins both tires when a certain amount of torque is applied.

 

because an Eaton or Auburn cone style Posi is not going to hold up long under that kind of power. Plus generally when someone puts down that kind of power, they are more focused on straight line performance. The only way to get long term reliablitly is to go with a Detroit Locker for an everyday vehicle with big HP. I have a RR-version Auburn in my little V6 Camaro that cost me about $600. The standard ones are about $400. I would not run even a RR-version one on a car that put out over 250hp and saw daily use, but thats just my opinion and experience.