GT350R Springs for GT (high rate, minimum lowering)

[Darkhelmet22]

I would first just like to say thank you for all the info posted in this thread, its awesome. While I've read most of it I haven't been through it all. With that said, I went with:
BMR SP080
BMR CB005
Steeda fixed struts and shocks
Steeda billet shock mounts
Steeda diff inserts
Ford toe link bearing

I'm still getting some understeer and it seems a bigger front sway bar would be the best option to help remedy this, or would going with higher rate springs be a better option? Oh and I have a PP car.

Sponsored

 

[SteedaTech]

I would first just like to say thank you for all the info posted in this thread, its awesome. While I've read most of it I haven't been through it all. With that said, I went with:
BMR SP080
BMR CB005
Steeda fixed struts and shocks
Steeda billet shock mounts
Steeda diff inserts
Ford toe link bearing

I'm still getting some understeer and it seems a bigger front sway bar would be the best option to help remedy this, or would going with higher rate springs be a better option? Oh and I have a PP car.

In most cases, going up in rear bar stiffness will help with eliminating under steer.

Steeda Tech

 

[BmacIL]

I would first just like to say thank you for all the info posted in this thread, its awesome. While I've read most of it I haven't been through it all. With that said, I went with:
BMR SP080
BMR CB005
Steeda fixed struts and shocks
Steeda billet shock mounts
Steeda diff inserts
Ford toe link bearing

I'm still getting some understeer and it seems a bigger front sway bar would be the best option to help remedy this, or would going with higher rate springs be a better option? Oh and I have a PP car.

How much camber do you have in the front?

 

[Darkhelmet22]

How much camber do you have in the front?

-.8 both sides

 

[BmacIL]

-.8 both sides

There's your understeer. You want at least -1.5 both sides. Even up to -2 will not have a significant impact on inside tire wear. Toe is what wears the tire. If you are planning to track or autocross the car I would strongly recommend getting up to at least -2 in the front.

 

[Darkhelmet22]

There's your understeer. You want at least -1.5 both sides. Even up to -2 will not have a significant impact on inside tire wear. Toe is what wears the tire. If you are planning to track or autocross the car I would strongly recommend getting up to at least -2 in the front.

Guess it's time for some CC plates. In my head I would love to do a bunch of track and autox events but the reality is I probably wont do any. lol I ran -1.5 camber in my S197 and ya, no understeer. I also had a way stiffer suspension on that car.

 

[BmacIL]

Guess it's time for some CC plates. In my head I would love to do a bunch of track and autox events but the reality is I probably wont do any. lol I ran -1.5 camber in my S197 and ya, no understeer. I also had a way stiffer suspension on that car.

Pretty sure you could easily get away with bolts too. Plates are obviously better.

 

[Darkhelmet22]

Pretty sure you could easily get away with bolts too. Plates are obviously better.

If I'm doing it, I'll do plates. I don't like the bolts.

 

[ansibe]

I don't know why everyone is so negative regarding bolts. I use bolts on my Subie brz and they work great. I've had plates slip out of position but never bolts.

Plates will allow you to change camber trackside, but I'm always afraid that will screw up the toe. I have my camber plates aligned on a rack ... just like I do with bolts.

Plates are also way cooler. That counts.

 

[Norm Peterson]

It's less about the bolts per se than it is about how much lower the torque spec for them is (how much less the joint clamp load is), compared to the torque spec for the full-diameter non-camber-adjustable bolts. Bolted joints remain in position due to friction between the things being clamped, not intentionally by the bolts in direct shear.

In some cars the crash bolts may be torqued to nearly 90% of OE spec, which isn't the same level of risk that has happened with crash bolts for other cars. Particularly including the S197 Mustang, where the aftermarket bolts were torqued to barely over half the original OE spec (77 vs 148). That's less than half the revised OE S197 spec (166) after some suspension failures were blamed on inadequate clamp load from the OE bolts.

I don't have a problem with adjusting camber at the knuckle as long as you are using full strength bolts when you do. I've even done this myself (oversize holes, OE bolts, reasonably positive means of retaining the setting).


Norm

 

[saf1]

^^^ This!

See my Ride Frequency chart. It also shows the Wheel Rates, which are the effective spring rates taking into account the motion ratio.
http://www.mustang6g.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1637308&postcount=145

Hi BmacIL (and probably also BMR) - based on the Ride Frequency chart the GT350R springs drop front and rear ride height 3/4"? I never noticed the GT350's having a higher nose like our GT/PP's. One thing I was looking for was to bring the nose of the car down just a tick in the process also.

I have seen the SP085 also recommended which seems to drop the front a bit more. Originally on my list was GT350Rs both front and rear but I would like a bit more balanced look and rake I would consider the SP085's for my daily driver unless there are others recommended noted in post #384.

 

[2015Etrac]

Hi BmacIL (and probably also BMR) - based on the Ride Frequency chart the GT350R springs drop front and rear ride height 3/4"? I never noticed the GT350's having a higher nose like our GT/PP's. One thing I was looking for was to bring the nose of the car down just a tick in the process also.

I have seen the SP085 also recommended which seems to drop the front a bit more. Originally on my list was GT350Rs both front and rear but I would like a bit more balanced look and rake I would consider the SP085's for my daily driver unless there are others recommended noted in post #384.

My car dropped .6" in the front and .3" in the rear with the GT350R springs. With the stock springs it appeared the front sat higher, now it has a very slight rake to the front (positive rake?), which I like and I feel like I can now see over the hood a bit easier, though maybe it's just my imagination. I didn't want to go any lower for a daily driver, especially around here, the front slightly scrapes my driveway as is. The GT350R springs with the Koni shocks make a HUGE difference in handling and they ride really well on the street, I was expecting a much harsher ride. I thought I seen a post by BMR saying they planned to make or were considering a performance spring similar to the GT350R's ride height and spring rate, so that might be worth checking out. I have to give BmacIL props, he helped me greatly with deciding on which suspension components to go with.

 

[5.0_SD]

We are all very blessed and lucky to have people like Kelly, the Steeda guys, Norm, BmacIL, and others that have so much knowledge on suspensions and the science behind it AND that they willingly, graciously, and PATIENTLY answer mine and everyone's questions about it. I remember reading for hours over on the s197 forum about stuff Norm, and several others discussed about suspension...I was always blown away by the knowledge being dropped...so a HUGE THANK YOU to all of you that help us not so suspension knowledgeable people here!

Btw, I went with some Bmac/Kelly suggestions...SP085 in the rear, GT350r front, Steeda Progressives-Adjustable...looking forward to getting those and all the other stuff these guys helped me pick out on the car

 

[Norm Peterson]

My car dropped .6" in the front and .3" in the rear with the GT350R springs. With the stock springs it appeared the front sat higher, now it has a very slight rake to the front (positive rake?), which I like and I feel like I can now see over the hood a bit easier, though maybe it's just my imagination.

Maybe don't write it all off as imagination. Right now you're about as close to an 'A - B' comparison for noticing differences as it gets. I sure noticed the difference going from stock to -0.5"f/-1.0"r when I first installed a set of BMR's, and again when I brought the rear back up about 3/8" to better match the front.

That's separate from noticing the car being just a tad lower as a whole (easier to wash the roof).


Norm

 

[BmacIL]

Hi BmacIL (and probably also BMR) - based on the Ride Frequency chart the GT350R springs drop front and rear ride height 3/4"? I never noticed the GT350's having a higher nose like our GT/PP's. One thing I was looking for was to bring the nose of the car down just a tick in the process also.

I have seen the SP085 also recommended which seems to drop the front a bit more. Originally on my list was GT350Rs both front and rear but I would like a bit more balanced look and rake I would consider the SP085's for my daily driver unless there are others recommended noted in post #384.

I apologize I need to correct the rear height on the 350R springs. They're actually a 10 mm drop, which matches [MENTION=25684]2015Etrac[/MENTION]'s experience of 0.3" measured. The front is 0.7" as measured on my car. It'll vary slightly car to car. I'm very happy with the 0.7"/0.5" drops on mine. It looks very balanced (check pics in my build thread), but I could see wanting a little bit more of a difference. Even the 0.6" average lowering is immediately noticeable, especially when you see it next to a stock PP car.

Sponsored