I'm guessing you missed the last line of what I said.
"(Of course I'm being silly here)"

[QUOTE=articwhiteZ;5145961]you do understand it was a Joke..Right?QUOTE]

 

all good did not take wong way

 

[quote=TTOP350;5146445]I'm guessing you missed the last line of what I said.
"(Of course I'm being silly here)"

yes saw it.. just wanted to make sure.. some guys are so so touchy

you see things posted about

To Big
To stiff
Rough ride

and all i say is.. we are talking about Cars..right....

 

[QUOTE=articwhiteZ;5147823]You dated her too ????

 

 

yeah what's up with that disagree and get torn apart. So I put a lot of thought in it since learning to build cup cars. Love the idea but I just think stock design was better. Just got a bad rep because of cheap stamped parts. You get best of all setups plus with aftermarket upgrade full adjust to dial it in. So let I let it go. I like to win more then look cool. So I have neither hahaha

 

If you're looking for a strong direct swap factory rear end with torque arm provision and no fabrication, consider a 9-bolt. Some of them have rear disc (such as from 85/86 GTA). Borg Warner rear end made in Australia. Do some research. I've had one racing for a long time, and they're wicked strong.

 

I doubt that longtime members will agree with "wicked strong." Most would agree, I think, that the 9-bolt is stronger than a 10-bolt, but not significantly.

JamesC

 

not to mention sourcing parts for them is getting harder as time goes on.

 

I agree with James and Dan...

 

I wish I had taken pix of the "wicked strong" 9bolt that I snapped both axles off and shoved the diff through the cover... Wicked 4 sure..

 

9bolt
they work Wicked Fantastic on Golf carts..

 

Pretty good one there.

Sounds like .... somebody needs to spend more time reading on the Trans/Drivetrain board.

But, the 9-bolt uses the same torque arm as the 10-bolt, so ...... still no closer to "torque arm elimination".

 

True, so

JamesC

 

you could always do what ford does and use those two upper bars I don't remember what there called. Add support to body like you do with roll cages weld on brackets and make the two bars. And still keep ground clearance. Just a thought don't know how it would work being ford design lol of course with that a 9inch is bullet proof

 

You don't need to read about something in message boards that you're already doing. Have had a 9-bolt in my car for years. It was such a great deal that I pulled a second one from a yard as a replacement in case it gets torn up. I also have a complete narrowed 9-inch, and a car 12-bolt with ladder bars, strange axles and a full spool prepped and lying in the garage waiting for a chance as well.

While lighter cars and similar times have torn up gears, axles and other stuff in "better" rear ends, the original 9-bolt has lived on consistently putting a 3400lb car 6.90 in the 8th (around 10.80's or 10.90's). It may not be in the 9's, but it cost around $450 total including completely replacing the rear discs almost 8 years ago, has been raced at the track hundreds of times since. Maybe it's a fluke, but there's no reason to believe the 9-bolt won't live until eventually the car gets tubbed and changed to the spool.

The point is, why get rid of the torque arm? It's pretty good at what it does. If you take your time, find the right rear end with higher series carrier / gears and disc brakes, you get a 9-bolt for a few hundred bucks and get to have some fun while you save for whatever you want to upgrade to in the future, and with no need to delete the torque arm. Sounds cost effective.

 

my friends dad had a 10bolt built till was ready to get a 9inch and car tubed. The car had to run 9s never been to track, with nos. He always complained about the 10bolt but it never broke. It was also a tci 700r4 400sbc all dart. My point is if you build it right it will hold up. The 9inch just has pinnon support so no flexing, just power will brake it. And I did say 10bolt with 430 something gears

 

. . . Although maybe "wicked strong" was perhaps just a little bit enthusiastic . . . lol.

 

Those are called "upper control arms"... very common design, GM used it as well, it's the system under Chevelles, full-size sedans, etc. Basically about every rear-wheel drive car that didn't have leaf springs.

That's called a "4-link". 2 lowers, 2 uppers. Thing is, you have to have something to bolt the far end of them to; and there's nothing there in this chassis. Since it doesn't have a frame there's no structure up there. Then, to put structure there, you have to cut a bunch of the car out of the way and weld in something with some structure to it.

Possible; fairly common, in race cars; just, not a casual Sat afternoon type of project, and not easy to do it and leave the car streetable (at least, not if you care about road schmutz and water and whatever being separated from the interior).

Would work (or not) the same with a 10-bolt or a 9-bolt, since they're essentially identical on the outside. Same spring perches, same torque arm mount, same Panhard bar mount, same brakes, same LCAs, same length, same drive shaft, everything the same the same. Only different on the inside.

Alot of people have gone pretty fast on a 9-bolt; and alot also on a 10-bolt. Doesn't automatically mean they're "strong" though. Some other people have tore em up without doing anything they thought was stressful. I guess it's just luck of the draw to some extent.

 

Dont you talk about your "street car" running 10.30's on "pump gas" in another thread? 12.5 to 1 compression and big duration sure sounds like a streetcar to me. I was just wondering how much B.S. your full of as you talk your car up in every post like its the coolest thing ever. You live in the same town as me and i think we need to race.

I think we nicknamed you "Lingenflinger" back in the day because every other word out of your mouth was about your Lingenfelter motor you had that ran 12.50's. I only run a 2.75 rear gear and 8.7 to 1 compression so you shouldnt have any problem.

I own the Black Trans Am thats as streetable as a stocker and goes 9.30's. Some useful information for this thread is i also run the stock torque arm that has been relocated to a custom tranny x member with (of all things) a stiffener plate welded to the side of it so it wont fold up. I added that after it survived a few 1.43 60 ft times and has since gone 1.32 in the 60 and lived. They are hard to beat and in fact the mustang guys are converting over to the torque arm on the late model stuff so it must be a good thing.

 

i am still putting the 8.8 in my car and was thinking of doing this set up and just modifieing the the cross member a little bit
http://www.maximummotorsports.com/st...roducts_id=222

 

 

First off, Maximum Motorsports is one of the good guys to deal with for Mustang suspension stuff.

There may be a difference in the length of MM's Fox-body TA relative to the OE 3rd gen, though I doubt that the MM piece is anywhere near as short as Global West's Trac-link. The length of a TA has a fairly strong effect on the amount of anti-squat, and the GW piece is probably a little on the "too-short" side.

Let me suggest taking advantage of any help that MM has to offer, and if you can speak directly with Jack Hidley please do so.


FWIW, the 8.8" Ford is starting to become one of the axles to look for, given that most every other axle that's strong enough is getting harder to find and getting more expensive when you do. There's at least one effort underway toward a kit to mount the 8.8 to the '78 - '87 A/G-body chassis.


Norm

 

My buddy did the 8.8 swap. Here's the link to our local board. It's on a 4th gen LT1 car, but it's essentially the same set up.

http://triadfbody.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5298

...and of course, many of you guys know "Pocket" from here on TGO. There are some pics of his 8.8 swap down towards the bottom of that thread.

 

emailed maximum motorsports yesterday. They got back to me today and told me they will make one whatever length i need! Now thats a good business!!

 

when I comes to the torque arm, Here what I am lead to believe. The Longer the torque arm, the less wheel hop incured, however it adversly affects acceleration (More wheel hop). The shorter the torque arm, the better the acceleration, and induces more wheel hop during braking.
But why can't the torque arm be replaced? And how can you replace and still maintain factory performance or better? These are the question the thread initiator asked, and no one has any answers. Instead its wound up being a **** throwing contest.
However, I will have to find the thread again. but I think I found a probable solution in this site that was overlooked. It was a gentlemen who used a set of heavy duty LCAs', and welded a bracket to the LCA and a Bracket to the rearend. Between those brackets he used a shorter adjustable link similar to a LCA. Adjustable so that the pinion angle could be set, and used an end link that allowed it to act very similar to the torque bar.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that solve this whole issue with twisting and 3/4 links and traction and cornering and ETC?

 

No...

Evidently you don't get around racing very much. Otherwise you'd already know what you're describing. In fact you can buy it at the store. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/LAK-21700/

That's basically a homemade ladder bar setup; and as such, shares the same extremely strong weakness that any ladder bar system has.

Which is this: imagine that setup you describe, or the store-bought version of it, as the rear suspension travels up and down. The axle moves in an arc, centered on the front bolt of the ladder bar as its pivot. As it moves, it also rotates; easy enough to see how, if you imagine which direction the pinion would be pointing if the axle could travel 90° downward, and which way it would be pointing if it could travel 90° upward. Now of course we all know it'll never try to go THAT far; but the point should be clear: the act of the suspension travelling, rotates the axle.

Problem is, which way is it going to rotate if it's moving upwards at one end, and downwards at the other; such as, going around a corner, or over a bump, or into your driveway? One end is trying to rotate CW, and the other CCW. Can this happen to YOUR axle? How is it going to TWIST, with one end trying to make the pinion point DOWN from wherever it starts out at ("adjust")and the other end trying to make it point UP? It CAN'T POSSIBLY let the car roll naturally, without SOMETHING bending or breaking.

That's both the strength and the weakness of a ladder bar: for drag racing, it tries REAL HARD AT ALL TIMES to hold the car level, and by extension, straight. But that's its weakness on the street, as well. Sooner or later, SOMETHING is going to break. Could be one of YOUR welds, could be the sheet metal the LCA bolts to, could be the floor pan, could be an axle tube breaking out of the pumpkin, could be ... any number of things. But SOONER OR LATER, SOMETHING is going to break. Always does. Probably would be sooner in a car with as little structure around the rear as these cars have.

Question then is, ever been driving down the freeway, say with your wife & kids in the car, and had the rear axle break out from under your car? What did all the people around you, when you had not the slightest control over which way your car was going at 65 mph, think about that?

For STRIP USE ONLY, a setup like that will work; but for anything else, it's a DEATH TRAP AND DISASTER just biding its time.

Read the fine print down in the "overview" section there for a few hints.

So no, it will not "solve" anything, except in one very limited and narrow scope; and will in fact make cornering FAR worse.

 

One option was mentioned (posts 65 & 69), and that was to use two upper arms like the 2004 and earlier Mustangs and GM's A & G body cars used and ditch the torque arm and the PHB.

Another option is to use a single upper arm plus the panhard bar you already have. This is what the current Mustang runs, including the 662 HP 2013 GT500 and 700 HP and up Shelby and individual efforts. Build the necessary brackets and local chassis structure with adequate strength and this basic design will be just as streetable as OE. At most, you might have to tinker with relo bracket settings and UCA (upper control arm) inclination for IC purposes.


About ladder bars and any arrangements that may look a little different but behave the same geometrically - that they "work" at all on the street is in spite of their design, not because of it. Arctic gets away with it in his street driving because he drives like he's at a car show. You can take that to mean very gently. Probably more gently than most of us would be able to always drive.

"Streetable" is a rather vague term, but one of the things you strive to do to maintain it is to allow all of the individual suspension parts to work together as a team. Not working at cross purposes to and fighting each other. That's what will make the ride hard for reasons not involving the springs/shocks/stabilizer bars, and ultimately results in poorish handling. Probably not spit-you-off-the-road-because-you-blinked bad, but enough of a change that you have to change the way you'd otherwise drive.


Somewhat simplified, the linkage you need to properly locate a stick axle can be boiled down to what you need to resist exactly four movements (lateral axle shift, pinion angle rotation, left end fore/aft, right end fore/aft). This takes exactly four links or similarly simple devices before they start getting in each other's way.

Two LCAs + 2 SSM bars + 1 PHB = at least 5, and structurally this is an "overconstrained" condition. That's at least one too many restraints.

Two ladder bars + PHB is really 5 as well. Each ladder bar behaves as an axle-end fore/aft restraint and also resists pinion angle rotation and are therefore not "links or similarly simple devices". You've got two of these things . . .


Ladder bars and ladder bar wanna-be's work at the dragstrip because roll due to cornering doesn't matter and one-wheel bumps aren't an intentional feature to be dealt with either. There is, however, some traction benefit in reducing roll due to engine torque reaction. So you not only can get away with over-restraining the axle at the strip, you may actually want to bind things up a little when you're making your runs.

But that directly means that the car won't be as streetable as when it only had four restraint directions. Discussion past this point is only about how much streetability is sacrificed.


FWIW, I don't think it was mismanagement that killed SSM. I've heard it was predatory business tactics by some much larger parts supplier.


Norm

 

To add to Norm's discussion, there ARE vehicles that use "more" than might at first appear necessary, but on further inspection, aren't...

The early Cheeep unibody crossovers such as the Bland Cherokee use 4 control arms and a Panhard bar on BOTH front and rear. However, unlike the more typical stock 4-link like GM A, B, & G bodies, they're all 4 parallel. There is NO side-to-side constraint therefore; which is why the PHB is required.

 

Also incidentally, the whole torque arm length thing that you "think" you "understand", you don't quite...

The "ideal" "neutral" condition occurs approximately when the suspension's "instant center" is somewhere along a line between the tire contact patch and the car's center of gravity, viewed from the side of the car. In a suspension of the type we have (torque arm w/ slider at the front) the IC is located at the point where the line through the LCA bolts intersects a vertical line through the slider (torque arm bushing). The CG is somewhere near the shifter ****, maybe a couple of inches in front of it and maybe an inch or 2 below it, but in that neighborhood somewhere. If the IC is below that imaginary line described above, the car "squats" on acceleration, which is where the wheel hop comes from; if the IC is above that line, the car has "anti-squat", where the axle tries to LIFT the rear instead of letting it DROP, in which case acceleration "drives" the tire into the pavement instead of lifting it off, but braking does the opposite. Clearly, "length" of the TA is NOT the variable that's actually at work.

In a 4-link, the IC is located where the line through the LCA bolts intersects the line through the UCA bolts. Clearly, very easy to tune, if the various members have a rnage of attachment points. Look at a typical racing cage & 4-link setup for a clue.

In a ladder bar system, the IC is exactly at the pivot point of the ladder bar. Basically impossible to tune once the system is assembled. Pinion angle by itself doesn't alter the suspension behavior, obviously; but that's all you have with ladder bars, unless both the upper and lower links on each bar are individually adjustable. But even then, you're limited in adjustability by how far you can lengthen or shorten the wheelbase.

 

Plain and simple, the torque arm suspension works and works well. It's considerably easier to fabricate a bracket that will allow you to use a torque arm than it would be to completely alter your rear suspension setup - which will most likely have detrimental effects on handling and rearend articulation. The modification shown in this thread will limit the rearend to move independently on each side. (ie. going over a bump on the driver side of the car and not the passenger side.) This will increase roll rate and make the car either handle like garbage and increase oversteer.

The 8.8 has been swapped before. It's not too popular because people usually go with an off-the-shelf option, but the rear works and can be had for free, if you look in the right place.

Good luck, but I suggest keeping the torque arm at all costs.
- Kevin

 

Actually, it still is over-constrained (too many purely fore/aft restraints). Steeda's "5-link" for the 1979 - 2004 Mustangs is/was similar.

Such arrangements "work" through bushing compliances, and that puts this discussion on the edge of opening up a whole 'nother suspension topic.


Norm

 

For the record, no I really don't understand suspension much. It was something I never got into.
So the next question i have is, if you were to locate the mounting point of the Slider portion of the torque arm either up down (Given the torque arm is adjustable)., What effects would this have?

 

Why not get an 8.8 with the right brackets and mounting hardware to fit a 3rdgen? The SSM setup was and still is pretty much bad news for these cars.

 

Your pinion angle would change.

Your side view instant center would move, but probably not by enough to be at all useful.


Norm

 

I love my Jegs bar. It is the best! Road race or Drag it works well for most. I am putting 500 ft.lbs. to the ground with it. Its been working well for a year. It puts a monster strong plate with a lot of bolts floor spread out through the strongest part of the floorboards. this section ties right into the rear sub frame. Very strong I have lifted the carat that point and it was rock solid nothing flexing any where. A little jumpy on the downshifts but only on that monster shift from 2 to 1 on a 700 R4.