Det_Riot Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) Figured I'd make a thread to track the process of this fun project [MENTION=341]1997cobra[/MENTION] and I are imparting on. The goal of these brackets are too drop the mounting point of the upper control arms on the axle side in order to obtain optimal suspension geometry at my current ride height. This will correct the horrible instant center and anti squat that lowered mustangs encounter with stock mounting points. We're mocking the brackets up with cardboard, then will be transfering the mockups into CAD to CNC them out. We're also making our own upper control arms at half the price of buying them new.Why not go with baseline or TeamZ rear location brackets you ask? Simple. Neither of them will give me the mounting point that I need. Here is the basic design that we are using:We are going to be bracing it back to the axle tube and putting on adjustment rails that will allow adjustment every .1" Edited November 20, 2013 by Det_Riot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Heck ya man this is awsome. I was thinking about trying to make a bracket to convert to a 3 link set up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve-Oh Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 I was waiting for this thread to appear! Nice work guys!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det_Riot Posted November 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Thanks guys! Definitely wouldn't be happening without the knowledge that Donovan has about machining. We'll be updating whenever we get a chance to work on this bad boy. Also in addition to the plans for it, we're going to be machining pucks that will replace the upper control arm axle bushing to keep that connection point as rigid as possible. Definitely make the ride a bit more harsh but I'll survive, just going to have to reinforce the torque boxes real wellSent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iRoush Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 (edited) why not move the UCA mount out straight back? seems like a waste to do all that and still keep the poor angle the UCA's are at. make it like a modified version of steeda's 5-link where they attach the UCA mounts with an axle clamp straight behind where the chassis mount is. a straight arm > angled arms for traction and control.also anti squat is fixed with Kenny browns anti squat brackets (cheap) or going with a panhard/watts that allows you to adjust roll center. Edited November 20, 2013 by iRoush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det_Riot Posted November 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 why not move the UCA mount out straight back? seems like a waste to do all that and still keep the poor angle the UCA's are at. make it like a modified version of steeda's 5-link where they attach the UCA mounts with an axle clamp straight behind where the chassis mount is. a straight arm > angled arms for traction and control.also anti squat is fixed with Kenny browns anti squat brackets (cheap) or going with a panhard/watts that allows you to adjust roll center.It's still possible to move the upper mounting spot out. The easiest thing to do would just be to make like coilover brackets on the axle tube. With my ride height where its at, by dropping the upper control arm down on the body side, it will straighten out my AS and IC. My lowers already have a relocation bracket on them (hpm megabyte jr.) With as low as I am, the relocation brackets actually make my AS and IC values worse than if I was in stock location at the same height. Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iRoush Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 It's still possible to move the upper mounting spot out. The easiest thing to do would just be to make like coilover brackets on the axle tube. With my ride height where its at, by dropping the upper control arm down on the body side, it will straighten out my AS and IC. My lowers already have a relocation bracket on them (hpm megabyte jr.) With as low as I am, the relocation brackets actually make my AS and IC values worse than if I was in stock location at the same height. Sent from my XT1080 using TapatalkI dunno just seems like a lot of work for the results you're looking for, but, that's just my opinion. Still think it's great you're designing it yourself instead of buying OTS. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det_Riot Posted November 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 I dunno just seems like a lot of work for the results you're looking for, but, that's just my opinion. Still think it's great you're designing it yourself instead of buying OTS. Good luck!I'll post up numbers and graphs and such after work when I have data in front of me. Thanks for the support Bert! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex302 Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 why not a 3 link. MM panhard bar , torque arm and get rid of the UCA all together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det_Riot Posted November 20, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 Because that costs more money then this will. I'll be into the brackets the cost of metal, and control arms a total of like $60. So buying a panhard, torque arm, and whatever vs $100 and some time mocking things up. Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1997cobra Posted November 20, 2013 Report Share Posted November 20, 2013 [MENTION=5]Det_Riot[/MENTION] we can do our own 3 link if you are feeling it ;-) it'll probably be easier actually Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det_Riot Posted November 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 I dunno just seems like a lot of work for the results you're looking for, but, that's just my opinion. Still think it's great you're designing it yourself instead of buying OTS. Good luck!So here's what I'm working with:This is my current control arm configuration overlaid onto a picture of my car. At it's current configuration, the upper control arms mounting points are located at 16.19" off the ground on the axle and 13.13" on the frame side. This points them down at a significant angle.The lowers have the axle side mounting point 6.75" off the ground, and frame side of 7.63"; pointing them up at the already greatly sloped upper control arm linesAs the picture above shows with that diamond, that is the approximate location of my instant center... 22" infront of my rear axle, aka horrendous. and my anti squat value, of 171%Now, moving right along. The following pictures is how my control arms will be arranged by dropping the mounting points and moving them forward.As you can see, the intersection of the two control arms will move forward. By putting these numbers back into the 4 link calculator and not touching the lower the control arms, it will drop my AS value to 99% and move the instant center out to 44". From that point, I'll have a pretty solid place to start with fine tuning the car at the strip, which would be different shock and strut settings on the front and the rear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iRoush Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 keep in mind by doing this you are also severely altering your pinion angle. If you don't place the UCA mounts in an area that allows you to adjust the pinion angle you could be in serious trouble. Not to mention by no longer using your upper torque boxes since you're moving the arm down and forward, you're going to be putting a lot of stress on an area that is not designed to take it. Not saying it's not possible, it's just going to require lots of extra metal to reinforce it to the same strength as a welded + battleboxed Upper torque box.But I like the overall idea, even if it is a bit more complex then most people would think to go. as I said a modified version of the steeda 5-link would work just as well. you could literally order the UCA and mounts from Steeda seperately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det_Riot Posted November 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 keep in mind by doing this you are also severely altering your pinion angle. If you don't place the UCA mounts in an area that allows you to adjust the pinion angle you could be in serious trouble. Not to mention by no longer using your upper torque boxes since you're moving the arm down and forward, you're going to be putting a lot of stress on an area that is not designed to take it. Not saying it's not possible, it's just going to require lots of extra metal to reinforce it to the same strength as a welded + battleboxed Upper torque box.Pinion angle shouldn't change, even if it does, we're making up some tubular double adjustable uppers to bring it back into check. We are till using my upper torque boxes? Mounting point on the body isn't moving from stock location.But I like the overall idea, even if it is a bit more complex then most people would think to go. as I said a modified version of the steeda 5-link would work just as well. you could literally order the UCA and mounts from Steeda seperately.Interesting, definitely makes it look very simple! If you make the uppers parallel, you'd then lose side to side restraint and need to a track bar or panhard bar correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iRoush Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Pinion angle shouldn't change, even if it does, we're making up some tubular double adjustable uppers to bring it back into check. We are till using my upper torque boxes? Mounting point on the body isn't moving from stock location.Interesting, definitely makes it look very simple! If you make the uppers parallel, you'd then lose side to side restraint and need to a track bar or panhard bar correct?Pinion angle will change. You're changing the location of the UCA attachment to the axle. You need to make sure you put it at such an angle that will rotate the axle upward/downward and not at an angle that will just push/pull the axle forward and back. Ah gotcha, I thought you said you were changing the attachment by moving it forward on the chassis. if you're not changing that, then then it should be a tad more simple than I initially thought.Yes you will need a side to side axle location device. That's where Ford was retarded and designed the UCA's to do two jobs at once...poorly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det_Riot Posted November 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 haha yah, we're making double adjustable uppers so we'll still be able adjust pinion angle. Dunno if we'll switch it up to the steeda 5 link type uppers, only caviat is that the mounting point needs to be lower than the oem axle ears so the 5 link won't really help me in that regard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iRoush Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 haha yah, we're making double adjustable uppers so we'll still be able adjust pinion angle. Dunno if we'll switch it up to the steeda 5 link type uppers, only caviat is that the mounting point needs to be lower than the oem axle ears so the 5 link won't really help me in that regard.It could very well help you actually. only thing you need is your own axle tube clamps. Look at the design. there made with some adjustability in mind... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted November 21, 2013 Report Share Posted November 21, 2013 Does the Panhard bar in the steeda kit still make it difficult to run tail piped like the maximum Panhard bar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iRoush Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Does the Panhard bar in the steeda kit still make it difficult to run tail piped like the maximum Panhard bar?on the first version, yes. but they revised it on their second version (that they now sell) which clears rear exit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Is it just for tails that follow the factory path, or would a mac or magnaflow car back work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iRoush Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 (edited) Is it just for tails that follow the factory path, or would a mac or magnaflow car back work?factory exhaust work.. if you have aftermarket it will need to be rerouted slightly.Per steeda: On some cars the factory tailpipes may fit by disconnecting them from the muffler, rotating them slightly and reattaching them. However, on most cars the midsection of the tailpipes will have to be modified by an exhaust shop to fit properly. If you have aftermarket tailpipes a new midsection will have to be fabricated. The Steeda 5-Link V.1 requires turndowns/side exit. Steeda 5-Link V.2 allows for rear exit. Edited November 22, 2013 by iRoush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 well crap looks like there no way to get a good rear suspension without losing your tail pipes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iRoush Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 well crap looks like there no way to get a good rear suspension without losing your tail pipes.far from the truth. The watts link that I run clears all rear exit exhausts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Yea but I was wanting to get away from running the stock uca mounting locations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1997cobra Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Steeda 5 link 2 works Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 I am looking for what [MENTION=5]Det_Riot[/MENTION] is though I am not as worried about cornering as I am about straight line traction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1997cobra Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 It can do straight line stuff too as long as you aren't on the ground like him Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zach Posted November 22, 2013 Report Share Posted November 22, 2013 Yea but when the car is running again I will have adjustable lca and it will be lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det_Riot Posted December 6, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 6, 2013 No real updates, been trying to research what direction is the best to take with this project and it's been much more difficult than I originally imagined =\ Should get some work done on it this weekend pending what [MENTION=341]1997cobra[/MENTION] has in store Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1997cobra Posted December 6, 2013 Report Share Posted December 6, 2013 the ultimate troll is here for the weekend, therefore im sure i'll be either at the bar or in the garage the entire time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SniveTroll Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 Looking at your designs i see the axle articulating front to rear causing a load bind on the uppers. Not only will that trash the torque boxes but add a stress riser on the axle. Sent by smoke signals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det_Riot Posted December 7, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 Looking at your designs i see the axle articulating front to rear causing a load bind on the uppers. Not only will that trash the torque boxes but add a stress riser on the axle. Sent by smoke signalsHow is it any more than stock location?Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1997cobra Posted December 7, 2013 Report Share Posted December 7, 2013 It's identical to the stock design... Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SniveTroll Posted December 9, 2013 Report Share Posted December 9, 2013 slope decline on the axle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
