Ford Performance Track Handling Pack

[dmann]

I have the full track package, and another difference you would get is approx 1" lower ride height, and the additional camber that will automatically come with it. I'm happy with mine.

Did you happen to note the camber changes before and after the springs(with or without camber plates?)?

Sponsored

 

[TheLion]

Interesting, my BRZ was the most predictable sliding machine I've had the pleasure to own. If they would just do the chassis justice with an OEM FI option they would have a world beater.

I've only driven it a few times, but it felt like the limit was very narrow and there was not much forgiveness between holding and breaking the rear end loose. That made it very easy to break it loose on demand at lower speeds and it was very controllable at low speeds, but it felt dangerous at 70 mph and my buddy even warmed me it goes very suddenly when it goes and to be careful, I didn't fee like I could safely push the car at higher speeds without crossing it's limit accidentally = not good.

My MX-5 was very similar, at lower speeds you can access those limits with ease, but the short wheel base and stiff suspension make it very edgy at higher speeds and that does not inspire confidence.

A very stark contrast to my GT around the same corners (note that these are larger sweeping corners at 70~75 mph). On very tight corners the BRZ definitely transitions better and provides excellent feedback, which is typical of smaller cars, reminded me of my old 1997 MX5 M-edition.

But also inherent in smaller lighter cars with shorter wheels bases is lower road holding limits, they just aren't as secure comparatively as your traction coefficient goes down and all the reviews show the same thing repeatedly. Most of the momentum cars are limited to about 0.90 g while the larger cars are hitting nearly 1 g or above road holding on similar tires and tracks.

There's pros and cons to both setups. Honestly there is no such thing as a "fastest car". There's cars that are lightweight but lower powered (you can FI a V8 just like an I4 and have the same or better power to weight ratio) that transition very well (slolm, tight technical tracks with lots of sharper corners) and then there are heavier longer wheel based cars with big power that excel in larger high speed tracks (1.5~2.5 mile + tracks) that have large straights, several high speed sweepers with only a few very sharp or technical sections. Longer chassis are simply more stable at higher speeds and allow for more predictable maneuverability.

And then there's cars in between both that are good all around but not necessarily the best at either (370z comes to mind). Each excels at certain track types. But given how many highways I drive on or wide open country roads, I've always found the power deficit of momentum cars a fun killer. When I get my friend's BRZ and hit the gas i'm falling asleep waiting for it to get moving...lol. 1st and 2nd aren't bad, but forget 3rd, it's balls drop off. My MX-5 was just like that. Then again maybe I'm biased having 465 HP on tap....

 

[Norm Peterson]

Interesting, my BRZ was the most predictable sliding machine I've had the pleasure to own. If they would just do the chassis justice with an OEM FI option they would have a world beater.

Or if they could find a way to fit an uprated version of Subaru's 3.6L H6.


Norm

 

[Daytona Coupe]

Did you happen to note the camber changes before and after the springs(with or without camber plates?)?

Front was about 1.0 before, and 1.5 after. Rear was about 1.5 before and 1.9 after. I changed the parts and took it in for alignment and everything was close enough that it wasn't even worth messing with. The alignment guy didnt charge me and sent me on my way. No camber plates installed. It was right on the spec in the Ford instructions. Drives great.

 

[TheLion]

Anyone have any good ideas on how to get a torque wrench over the rear drivers side inner camber nut? The fuel tank filler tube doesn't leave enough clearance. Only thing that I can fit so far is a box end wrench, so i'm only guessing on the torque (just cranking it down as hard as I can since it doens't have that much leverage).

Passenger side my 3/8" tekton and 18mm deep well socket fit just fine. Torque spec is 84 ft-lbs.

 

[sigintel]

Anyone have any good ideas on how to get a torque wrench over the rear drivers side inner camber nut? The fuel tank filler tube doesn't leave enough clearance. Only thing that I can fit so far is a box end wrench, so i'm only guessing on the torque (just cranking it down as hard as I can since it doens't have that much leverage).

Passenger side my 3/8" tekton and 18mm deep well socket fit just fine. Torque spec is 84 ft-lbs.

I have compared using the precision internal split beam w just practicing with an angle end wrench on a torque load cell. You can get very close.
The ACDelco torque cells (Amazon) are great for calibration and you can also add an extension either side and chuck it in the vice or something to hold it. Then add a socket with a phat nut half way in socket with some expose to put a wrench on, or a lug socket that might have wrenching flats, etc etc.
practice w the length of wrench you need. You will get to +\- 15% with ease.

That precision split beam pictured has an angle head and you can use that with something called a claw foot which combines torque wrench w open end box wrench head.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Anyone have any good ideas on how to get a torque wrench over the rear drivers side inner camber nut? The fuel tank filler tube doesn't leave enough clearance. Only thing that I can fit so far is a box end wrench, so i'm only guessing on the torque (just cranking it down as hard as I can since it doens't have that much leverage).

There's a way of hooking the box end of one wrench over one side of the open end of the combination wrench that fits the fastener you're trying to tighten (or loosen). Good for getting maybe double the torque you can get with the fastener-size wrench alone.

With a bit more work you could weld an old socket or the female end of a busted square drive size adapter to the wrench that fits the fastener and recalculate the torque reading to account for the added leverage. Basically, you're making your own "crow's foot". Adding 6" on the box wrench to - let's say a 15" long torque wrench - would change your target from 84 ft*lbs down to 84 * 15 / (15 + 6) or 60 ft*lbs. This would be with the box wrench lined up with the beam of the torque wrench.

Just don't let the angle between your torque wrench and your modified box wrench change as you tighten, else you'll have to recalculate your target torque to account for less leverage.


Norm

 

[TheLion]

I found these: https://store.snapon.com/Torque-Adaptors-C796465.aspx

I'm not sure if 2" will give me enough, but Napa has them for $14.99. It's more or less a super short box end wrench (12 point side) with a 3/8" square drive. According to standard 3/8" wrench lengths, you'd need to set it to 73 lbs-ft to get 84 lbs-ft applied torque. Right now I'm just cranking down as much as I can with a 18mm box end wrench. It's not long enough to over torque the nut, but I can get around 70 lbs-ft with it if I really go all out.

If that isn't long enough I may try one of the above, but I'm looking for a cheap solution at this point as opposed to buying $50~$100 worth of tools I'll almost never use. Right now I only have a best guess as to the rear camber settings. Here's what I did to at least measure them and get them equal (sans an differences due to sub-frame tolerance variations).

1. Put the car up on jack stands or ramps in the front
2. Lift the rear of the car with two 3-ton jacks, place jack stands under the rear jack points, but leave the car suspended in the rear under the outer edges of the spring perches on the lower control arms. More or less this compresses the suspension about 80% of the way. There' no good place farther out that's safe other than right under the hub knuckle, however if you load the hub knuckle you can't adjust the camber as it's loaded unless your super man maybe. This seems to be what Ford Performance shop instructions also suggest.
3. Loosen the upper and lower bolts for the vertical link (if it's stock as they won't rotate)
4. Loosen the outer and inner camber link bolts
5. Pull the top of the hub outwards (minimum camber) so the inner / bolt / nut slides out as far as it can go
6. Using a silver sharpie, trace the outer edge of the inner camber bolt nut for about 1/4 of it's circumference, this will give you a visual reference point so you can adjust the position and know where it's at.
7. Take an allen key or any small straight tool (I used an 1/8 inch allen key), and make 3 marks with the silver sharpie 1/8 inch apart on the allen key. The inner camber bolt appears to have about 3/8 to 1/2 inch of adjustment, or something close to that.
8. Now you can hold the allen key up to the edge of the nut to see exactly how far in or out it is relative to the silver sharpie arc you drew on the sub-frame. I set mine to the middle of the 3 marks, while I am not scheduled to get an alignment until the beginning of Sept. (no time), visually it appears to be around 1.25~1.5 degrees of rear camber. My fronts appear to be around 1.75~2ish at their current settings (I just set the caster / camber plates so the strut shaft is centered in the whole as it would be if I had non-adjustable plates).

By marking the allen key 3 times at 1/8th in intervals, there's also a gap between each mark so you can adjust close to 1/16th inch, which gives you more or less 6 indexing points. It's good enough to easily get things even and set where they need to be. It's hard to fit a ruler or any larger measuring device in that tight space, allen key is nice and small and you can hold it up there easily.

 

[Brian V]

And you thought getting a GT was going to be less work .
I am impressed with your ideas to reduce camber , but you won't know until you get an alignment .

 

[Norm Peterson]

You can check actual camber pretty accurately yourself with a digital angle finder (most from Harbor Freight and others are ±0.1°) and a reasonably flat setup area.

Norm

 

[Brian V]

@Norm Peterson I wouldn't trust that . What if you have a bad wheel ?

 

[Norm Peterson]

You can check for runout by jacking the tire clear of the ground and spinning it. Localized damage can be avoided if seen, and checking between two different pairs of circumferential locations can also identify a suspect wheel. You can roll the car a foot or so and re-measure, or you can mount wheels known to be good.

I've been doing all of my own alignments since about 1980 using digital angle finders (similar methods before they became available) and never ended up with a bad job. Even made my own camber gauge that uses a dial indicator, but the angle finder is easier and faster.


FWIW, within 0.1° is at least as good as you can get with shim-aligned SLA suspensions.


Norm

 

[TheLion]

You can check for runout by jacking the tire clear of the ground and spinning it. Localized damage can be avoided if seen, and checking between two different pairs of circumferential locations can also identify a suspect wheel. You can roll the car a foot or so and re-measure, or you can mount wheels known to be good.

I've been doing all of my own alignments since about 1980 using digital angle finders (similar methods before they became available) and never ended up with a bad job. Even made my own camber gauge that uses a dial indicator, but the angle finder is easier and faster.


FWIW, within 0.1° is at least as good as you can get with shim-aligned SLA suspensions.


Norm

That's an excellent idea using the angle finder! I may give that a try.

 

[Brian V]

Performing a procedure that tells us that the wheel is true should be undertaken first .

I sure would like to see your procedures and tools for camber adjustments !

 

[TheLion]

On a side note, I finally got the car back together from the "sheared diff bolt" episode. Also installed the FP outer toe link spherical bearings and a steeda short throw combined with the FP aluminum bushings that go into the end of the shifter housing arm where it mounts to the gearbox. Also topped off the fluid up to the drain hole.

My observations compared to the various suspension bits and bobs:

The combination of locking out the IRS cradle (BMR CB05), lowering springs (BMR SP080 on stock PP struts) and outer toe link bearings (Ford Performance) has made a substantial difference in handling of the car. It's like a different car all together. The latest Alpha based Camaro is often praised for it's precise and tight handling (and rightly so) while the PP GT is criticized for "wallowing", a delay in "taking a set in corner" and "vague feedback" in the rear end combined with severe wheel hop if you should break traction on the street.

I got caught up in the "wheel hop histaria" and I'll say that practically wheel hop is an over exaggerated issue as it relates to track and street. Tires are 80% of wheel hop. If the tire isn't breaking traction, it's not going to hop, even in drag racing. So I can live without the differential bushings (sheared one off and ended up restoring it to stock) and wheel hop can be reduced to the point where it's not nearly as severe IF it should occur by a little IRS and suspensions tuning.

With only the above 3 suspension modifications, the rear is now in perfect harmony with the front, the car doesn't have this "wait for it to take a set" in the corners any longer. The rear lets me know what it's doing and it does it consistently and precisely every time. The rear also feels far more connected to the ground and it's extremely predictable. I would say the IRS lock out was 50% while the toe links were the other 50% and yes, I installed them incrementally so I have a good idea of how it was with just the lowering springs and cradle lockout, everything else stock. All of the "wallowing" and "vagueness" is gone. Strangely, power delivery through the IRS is in my opinion better with no differential bushing supports (just the stock rubber) and the spherical outer toe link bearings as opposed to differential bushings and no toe link bearings. I'd say wheel hop is extremely minimal on the rare occasion it does occur, certainly not enough to be any issue for track or street use as your not really starting from a dig under power.

I'd take the outer toe link bearings over differential bushings any day due to the precision and feedback gained in the rear end. I was honestly quite surprised and not expecting that much refinement from them, perhaps I'm just overly sensitive to changes? FP's description says the outer toe link bearings benefit power down on corner exit the most and i'd agree, I can get on the throttle much earlier without breaking traction or producing a slight but very controllable slide of the rear end as the Torson starts to bias heavily. Here's a summary of how each part has affected the car's handling and power delivery:

BMR SP080 Performance Lowering Springs: reduced body roll quite a bit, eliminated the "PP Bounce" and provides more consistent damping. The suspension just feels like it's operating more smoothly. A very nice improvement over stock. Helps limit wheel hop some what by itself as the springs don't seem to oscillate (which contributes to already significant oscillation in the IRS and drive train).

CB05 IRS Cradle Lockout: provides centering for the IRS, eliminates that "wallowing" in the rear end. You no longer have to wait for the car to "take a set" mid corner, the rear is no synchronized with the front instead of feeling like it's doing something else or doing something in a delayed manner relative to the front. Also reduces wheel hop by quite a bit but does not eliminate it.

FP Outer Toe Link Spherical Bearings: gives the rear end a very connected feeling with the road. The car feels as precise in the back as it does in the front and power delivery especially on corner exit or even mid-corner is now precise and predictable. The vague feeling of the rear suspension is now gone or signfiicantly diminished. When combined with springs and cradle lockout, also works to further reduce wheel hop (at least on street and track) to negligible levels.

The car is just more nimble and feels much lighter than it did previously, but without feeling like a go-kart. Stock the car felt very heavy and weighted, almost sluggish in it's handling. The rear wasn't in sync with the front and seemed to want to do its own thing somewhat unpredictably. Nothing dangerous in normal driving by any means, but it certainly kept one from exploring closer to the limits in stock trim. For any street car I would highly recommend those modifications. From what i've heard, the BMR Handling springs also pair very well with FP Track struts, which would firm up the ride and reduce body roll to a minute amount even with stock PP sway bars. I'll upgrade once my PP dampers are out of gas, literally.

Sponsored