GT350 v2.0 ready for the track.....mods inside

[fpa1974]

You are quite vocal (I think I have seen at least 5 posts bashing the rear FRPP springs...lol)about that but you are the only one I have seen complain about the feedback. Something sure seems to be throwing the balance off on your car. The spring/sway bar combination is important just as much as setup (ie. preload, bind, etc.) Sure makes me think you have something else going on with the car.

The FRPP rear GT350 spring is certainly softer as it appears from the data suggesting as you alluded to more aero squat at speed with more anti roll. I suppose if you are accustomed to a stiff rear suspension then it could be an unsettling feeling.

I will reserve my judgment until I get it on the track.

I think you are definitely spot on about FP springs working a lot better with firmer rear bars (at least). Initially after I installed them and used them a bit I think they made a positive difference in the way car handled but I felt the rear end would not rotate as much as before. I added the R rear bar and now for me it is good enough - big difference. The car is very well balanced IMO.

Sponsored

 

[BmacIL]

I think you are definitely spot on about FP springs working a lot better with firmer rear bars (at least). Initially after I installed them and used them a bit I think they made a positive difference in the way car handled but I felt the rear end would not rotate as much as before. I added the R rear bar and now for me it is good enough - big difference. The car is very well balanced IMO.

This may be but I don't like that approach much. That will make for a car that could struggle with putting power down autocrossing or coming out of slow corners at the track. If you're gaining back roll stiffness via bar it'll pick up/unload the inside tire.

 

[JJones]

I have the Ford performance springs with R sway bar the car handles great but it can not put the power down I’m running super sports 325’s going to add the gbrace and vertical links anything else I should be looking at?:ford:

 

[fpa1974]

This may be but I don't like that approach much. That will make for a car that could struggle with putting power down autocrossing or coming out of slow corners at the track. If you're gaining back roll stiffness via bar it'll pick up/unload the inside tire.

That was my concern as well. Problem is I already had a problem with that. I did not want to make it worse so I did not want to go full blown FP sway bars which are even bigger. I actually like the idea of the non linear springs FP did because they can make this better to a degree.

I have the Ford performance springs with R sway bar the car handles great but it can not put the power down I’m running super sports 325’s going to add the gbrace and vertical links anything else I should be looking at?:ford:

Yep, same here. Since I switched to Cup2s (assuming they are warm enough) it is a lot better.

 

[BmacIL]

I have the Ford performance springs with R sway bar the car handles great but it can not put the power down I’m running super sports 325’s going to add the gbrace and vertical links anything else I should be looking at?:ford:

Go back to the stock track pack bar and get the new BMR Magneride springs when they're released. At least the rears for sure.

Do you have the CB005 cradle lockout kit? That and BK055 or BK081 RLCA bearings will kill all significant deflection and inconsistency in the rear. The vertical links do improve things but are a minor contribution.

 

[DocWalt]

If the bar is helping you maintain better geometric control (camber), the added stiffness could both improve responsiveness and limit grip, despite the change in weight transfer. Thoughts to consider...

Yeah stiffer bar for those reasons is exactly why I bought and installed the BMR bar. According to the numbers above it isn't actually stiffer though.

[MENTION=9985]BMR Tech[/MENTION] any input on BMR bar stiffness values vs GT350 OEM bar stiffness values?

 

[BmacIL]

Yeah stiffer bar for those reasons is exactly why I bought and installed the BMR bar. According to the numbers above it isn't actually stiffer though.

[MENTION=9985]BMR Tech[/MENTION] any input on BMR bar stiffness values vs GT350 OEM bar stiffness values?

I wouldn't believe all that data. For the Ford Racing to be that much stiffer their wall thickness would have to be much more. This I doubt to be true.

 

[DocWalt]

I wouldn't believe all that data. For the Ford Racing to be that much stiffer their wall thickness would have to be much more. This I doubt to be true.

Exactly. I'd much rather Kelly just tell me what the bar rates are that I can expect instead of some unknown tester

 

[TDC]

Yeah stiffer bar for those reasons is exactly why I bought and installed the BMR bar. According to the numbers above it isn't actually stiffer though.

[MENTION=9985]BMR Tech[/MENTION] any input on BMR bar stiffness values vs GT350 OEM bar stiffness values?

Any idea what material the two bars are made from. Maybe one has a higher torsional and elastic modulus?

 

[BmacIL]

Any idea what material the two bars are made from. Maybe one has a higher torsional and elastic modulus?

Steel has the same modulus regardless of heat treatment/grade. Yield and ultimate strength, as well as as elongation before failure, are what changes with different grades of steel.

 

[Niz55]

The front is hallow and the rear is solid on the frpp sways.

Here is the sway and the monster movetech endlink.

 

[cjgt350]

I wouldn't believe all that data. For the Ford Racing to be that much stiffer their wall thickness would have to be much more. This I doubt to be true.

Exactly. I'd much rather Kelly just tell me what the bar rates are that I can expect instead of some unknown tester

I looked at my source of the data again. He is not on this forum but races a S550. He sent a handful of sway bars out for testing. I am inquiring if he will share the test data report with me. But I did confirm the numbers. The stock GTPP sway bar was 385 lbs/in (excluding the "sticky" bushings)for context.

 

[rushca01]

Eagerly waiting on your review of the FP springs and sway bars, I am leaning this way myself just to keep "ford" parts.

 

[BmacIL]

I looked at my source of the data again. He is not on this forum but races a S550. He sent a handful of sway bars out for testing. I am inquiring if he will share the test data report with me. But I did confirm the numbers. The stock GTPP sway bar was 385 lbs/in (excluding the "sticky" bushings)for context.

I would be highly skeptical of the BMR front in soft setting being ~equivalent to the GT PP bar. 32 mm to 35 mm is a 33% increase in stiffness, if wall thickness is assumed the same. I would assume a ~500 lb/in stiffness for the middle setting of the BMR bar, and ~450 lb/in in the soft setting.

 

[cjgt350]

I would be highly skeptical of the BMR front in soft setting being ~equivalent to the GT PP bar. 32 mm to 35 mm is a 33% increase in stiffness, if wall thickness is assumed the same. I would assume a ~500 lb/in stiffness for the middle setting of the BMR bar, and ~450 lb/in in the soft setting.

While I understand your skepticism it is not implausible the test data is correct as sway bar ratings can be achieved in a number of ways as I know you are well aware.

The test data was completed at Ridetech btw and verbally confirmed by BMR according to my source on their softest setting.

Something to consider:

The data suggests the BMR numbers are correct when looking at Eibach's front 35mm sway bar where the softest setting is only 8lbs less than BMR's. Eibach's ratings are published by themselves so one can easily surmise both the GTPP and GT350 have a thicker wall than both Eibach or BMR's to achieve their lb/in target. I know BMR sells this sway bar for base models through GT so I am not surprised it has a "middle of the road" in/lb ratings if you will. They were talking about a 38mm. Was that possibly to address the demand for a higher rated sway bar? Thus far that has seemed to go quiet.

Until more data or testing surfaces I have to go with the data at hand.

Sponsored