Sponsored
Nagare
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2017
- Threads
- 58
- Messages
- 4,023
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- Ft Lauderdale
- Vehicle(s)
- 2017 Lightning Blue V6
- Vehicle Showcase
- 1
100% agree with this. TJ, Mike, Dario etc, you're free to invite him and explain away but every time I see him continue to post it is a pointless argument about the smallest of things. Yes, Ford Performance made a heck of a machine, but aftermarket part manufacturers can make improvements to parts whether you want to buy them or not. 10% improvement for 200% increase in cost might not be worth it to someone, but for someone else trying maximize everything they can, it can be. He's done this in the past with Kelly and I'm sure he'll do it again in the future. Just seems to be pedantic.
Roadway 5.0
Strassejager
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2016
- Threads
- 57
- Messages
- 1,483
- Reaction score
- 1,780
- Location
- New York - USA
- First Name
- Mike
- Vehicle(s)
- 2016GT PP 6MT
- Vehicle Showcase
- 1
All,
The name Eritas is "Satire" backwards. Perhaps he is just living up to his name and egging folks on for amusement.
The name Eritas is "Satire" backwards. Perhaps he is just living up to his name and egging folks on for amusement.
I vote to remove the front sway bar and end links from your list; your spring rate is stiff enough that I feel your stock PP bar will be plenty (it has delightful sticky bushings too). Consider a rear adjustable bar if you want to dial-in/out oversteer and utilize your OEM end links as they are solid enough back there. Take the savings and put this towards a lower Kmember brace.
TheLion
Well-Known Member
Out of curiosity what did you not like about the FP springs? I have BMR SP080's now and have no problem accepting BMR might have better springs than FP or Ford's OE. In fact, I think the SP080's or the minimal drop versions with PP struts should have been at least the stock springs on the base model.
I'm just curious as to what handling dynamic specifically you felt improved the cars handling with the SP083's over the FP Track Springs in the FP track package and why you don't think there would be any benefit to the slight increase in roll control with the FP sway bars. I suppose the safer bet would be to just do the struts and springs first with the stock PP sway bars. If I need more anti-roll I can always add it in later.
It's about the same price to piece together a mixed package from FP and BMR as it is to buy the whole track package so that's not an issue. I already have a CB05 cradle lockout and FP outer toe link spherical bearings and those are here to stay. And, I gotta say it, I'm a huge fan of the BMR raked stance. SP083's are listed as having the same 1.2" drop front and 0.5" rear unless I'm reading something wrong.
I do know FP's rear springs are progressive and not linear, but their fronts are obviously linear. I'm wondering if their progressive rears are due to manufacturing limits from their supplier in what they can offer or if it's just how they had them set up.
Also I'm curious as to the sway bars as well. Track Handling sway bars do have an increase in anti-roll. But are you suggesting they make the car edgy? Absolutely 0 body roll will make an edgy car, it creates an extremely defined edge between hold and breaking loose. Just a hair, a smidge of body roll can make a car much easier to drive. My old MX-5 M-Edition with the stiffer springs and bilsten dampers had just a hair of roll and it made the car very easy to drive fast but not so edgy it was un-predictable or took an extremely experienced driver to tap into it's potential. That car was on rails.
My PP GT with current mods has drastically improved, but I wouldn't say the car yet feels like it's on rails. Then again I'm also on the stock Pirellies which are far from a "on the rails" type of tire as well. Once they are burned up this year I'll switch over to some Pilot Sport 4S's next year or Conti's, haven't decided yet which. And yah, I type a lot, get over it.
Last edited:
TheLion
Well-Known Member
I'm gonna play devils advocate here and suggest the following: the GT4 is a race car for off-road use, we can all agree on that. The vertical link, stock, provides specific handling characteristics in certain driving situations that they MAY have wanted to maintain. Going to a hard coupled vertical link like BMR or Steeda offer with spherical bearings, delin bushings or even poly bushings may provide improvements in one area of handling at the expense of another.
There is no free lunch and handling (with current technology) is a series of compromises in an effort to provide the best balance of compromises which result in the fastest times. Setups that work extremely well for drag racing do not work well for track and even things that work well for track do not work as well for Auto X (like tires, RE71R's don't hold up well to track, but are the King's Pajama's for Auto X where you need maximum traction on cold tires).
HOWEVER that does NOT mean there is never a reason to use a spherical bearing or delrin vertical link. A drag IRS setup can absolutely benefit from them as it is one more part that helps reduce wheel hop. There are some people who prefer them for track while others don't (I've seen both sides).
On a road car however, it can add to breaking and throttle edginess you may not want as it completely eliminates knuckle rotation. The rubber bushings do allow for some small compliance and in a race car, you want very controlled compliance in very specific areas for very specific reasons. In other areas you may want 0 compliance. But I think the benefits of a cradle lockout and toe link bearings are greater than vertical links as they provide a really good level of precision and predictability to the IRS even with everything else stock.
Power delivery on corner exit is vastly improved with the toe link bearings and with the cradle lockout the car no longer has this "wait for it to take a set in the corner" type of thing going on which is due to cradle movement. Nor is there this delay in the rear working with the front, as if they are doing their own thing. IRS compliance may have been a Ford engineered thing for NVH purposes, but I think they went too far with it as it has some very negative handling characteristics. Thankfully it's a cheap fix with a net weight gain of only a few lbs.
Ford engineered all of those attributes into the car intentionally. It's a compromise to meet certain ride quality and NVH requirements, so not everything is "good enough" stock or "perfect". A base model S550 is like a Ford Fusion handling wise. No joke, my base model EB Mustang I bought in 2016 felt like I was driving a Ford Fusion Coupe' wrapped up in a Mustang body. The Performance Package is more like a baseline "Sport Package". It does contain some very key upgrades that would be very epxensive to improve after the fact, like cooling, brakes and limited slip diff that had a huge amount of value, but it's more of a good platform to start building up from where you address the handling issue while they deliver the most expensive parts needed for some legitimate track work. But the factory PP suspension tuning is sub-par for any real track work even for fun in my opinion.
I'd agree with the reviews, the car wallows, it has this wierd delay between the front and the rear and you have to wait for the car to take a set in a corner. The shifter is notchy and narrow, mine had issues going into 2nd gear period. The stock 5.0 had issues with power fade when you pushed it for more than a few minutes or after stop and go traffic.
While I'm not 100% convinced that a catch can was absolutely necessary as a good low NOACK oil may have been enough, but I decided to really tackle that issue and run both a low NOACK oil that is rated for knock resistance AND a catch can to boot and it completely eliminated that issue.
Ford's bias is absolutely on ride quality as opposed to ragged edge performance where the SS is the opposite and hence why it's such a great track car as is. However Ford's engineers did manage to build in an extremely strong foundation to start with. Why would they put in Boss 302 rotating assembly that isn't even close to being tapped into with factory tuning? Why would they tune the car so conservatively, that just giving up low octane fuels in a NA car results in 45 HP in the mid-range from a $600 software calibration, intake and throttle body? Why would they go through the trouble to build a completely new IRS and double ball joint multi-link front when half the IRS is buried beneath compliant rubber bushings that severely limit it's capabilities?
Because they accomplish two things: 1. They build a car that's more of a comfy grand touring car at a very reasonable price that IS the car that sells to the masses 2. They build a car that has an extremely strong foundation with the most expensive and critical parts already built into the car from which true car enthusiasts can build up from. At least that's what the first generation S550 was. The 2nd generation offers a legitimate (except diff and trans cooling) track package option in the form of Performance Package Level 2.
Last edited:
Sponsored
Eritas
Well-Known Member
Great reply. It's nice to have a cordial debate, rather than comparing wangs.
If the delrin/spherical vertical links do help for drag racing, then they should be marketed as such rather than trying to be sold to everyone under the sun, road course and street guys. But from my testing, replacing the vertical link didn't do anything for reducing wheel hop, so the stock link does not cause wheel hop. The stock rubber bushing is very thin and large in diameter and does not deflect much. Since it's only a tension/compression link in single shear, that alone should tell you about the load going through the link. These aftermarket link will probably break the single shear bolt before failing themselves. I'd like to see the load/deflection numbers of the stock link. It's going to be nowhere near as much as the thick rubber bushings in the lower control arms, toe links, or camber arms.
So going back to my original point, if Ford determined the stock link to be more than fine in the gt4 & fp350s, if not beneficial (as you suggested it could be due to possibly wanted compliance) for various spring/bar setups in racing, then it's probably beneficial for hpde guys as well.
TheLion
Well-Known Member
Ford Performance agreed with you on the vertical links and so do I in regards to street / track / auto x. I asked them why they didn't offer them in their track package. Their reply was "they did not find any benefit to them in their track handling package development testing". So I have come to understand their greatest benefit is in controlling wheel hop in a specific application, drag racing. In a high HP drag car on a super sticky track with drag radials, they absolutely can reduce wheel hop. BMR tested and proved that. However it's a very specific application and I do not believe there is any real benefit for road or street use.
I changed the IRS incrementally in my PP GT. First was lowering springs and cradle lockout. That eliminated the handling quirks and disconnect or delay between the front and rear of the car. Just recently I FINALLY got my toe links installed (when I was doing repairs from a sheared diff bolt). The improvement in power delivery (even though I'm now running the stock diff bushings and bolts) through the IRS is fantastic. I was very surprised at how much better (consistency and feedback alike) the car can put down power mid and on corner exit. So far I have not noticed any increase in NVH either from those 3 changes. Rest of the IRS and suspension is still stock. Vertical links, upper camber links and Rear Inner Front Lower Control Arm bushings are all stock.
The inner toe link bearing, rear inner lower control arm bearing and control arm to knuckle bearings are all spherical in stock form. Now with the outer toe link bearing spherical as well, toe angle changes only occur in extremely small increments due to the slight difference in length between the control arm and toe links and very minor movement allowed by the rear inner front lower control arm bushing (RLCA bearing as some call it). However any toe angle change is minuscule and linear. It's not random as it was with bushing deflection. I'm quite impressed with how much the cars handling has changed with just three very basic modifications.
At a minimum I think PP cars SHOULD have come with outer toe link bearings, a locked out IRS (or at least with solid rubber bushings) and some minimum drop type springs in a slightly stiffer spring rate. That would have dramatically sharpened the cars handling and made it very predictable, linear and provided some good feedback from the IRS that the stock form is completely lacking. There would be no delay between the front and rear of the car either nor would it be prone to suddenly and unexpectedly breaking loose at the limit. And I honestly cannot detect any NVH increases. Ride is slightly harsher, but only because of a little more feedback. AND there's no PP bounce either!
Eritas
Well-Known Member
Thanks for another great post, now if Steeda or BMR (BMRs posts were better) posted detailed info like that, if would help the OP and everyone a lot more.
I think it was Steeda that made a video showing how much the subframe and diff bushings move and that's the main cause of wheel hop. I'm going to do those soon but I got a vertical link for free and tried it and it didn't do anything.
I'm still skeptical of the need of aftermarket vertical links even in drag racing, since I can't find any pics of bent ones, and my BMW friends drag race 800hp M5s on slicks and never had an issue with breaking theirs. (Our IRS is pretty much the same design as an older 5-series). But in an extreme drag car, sure, it may serve a purpose, but for 99% of mustang owners, and road racers, I feel it's unnecessary.
I agree the subframe bushings are way too soft, but playing devil's advocate, it's the best selling sports car in history, so it needs to be compliant for the majority of mustang owners. Now, solid rubber would be nice in the subframe of PP and GT350 cars for those more interested in performance. But BMW may have gone too far with the F8Xs that don't have subframes and ride (and handle) like crap compared to my old E90 M3. But I think a solid rubber sure frame and diff bushings are what Ford needs to do in their performance cars.
Thanks for the chat. If you had a shop, I'd buy stuff from you. I think Steeda and BMR could learn from this discussion on how to have a cordial debate and how being arrogant can lose customers.
I think it was Steeda that made a video showing how much the subframe and diff bushings move and that's the main cause of wheel hop. I'm going to do those soon but I got a vertical link for free and tried it and it didn't do anything.
I'm still skeptical of the need of aftermarket vertical links even in drag racing, since I can't find any pics of bent ones, and my BMW friends drag race 800hp M5s on slicks and never had an issue with breaking theirs. (Our IRS is pretty much the same design as an older 5-series). But in an extreme drag car, sure, it may serve a purpose, but for 99% of mustang owners, and road racers, I feel it's unnecessary.
I agree the subframe bushings are way too soft, but playing devil's advocate, it's the best selling sports car in history, so it needs to be compliant for the majority of mustang owners. Now, solid rubber would be nice in the subframe of PP and GT350 cars for those more interested in performance. But BMW may have gone too far with the F8Xs that don't have subframes and ride (and handle) like crap compared to my old E90 M3. But I think a solid rubber sure frame and diff bushings are what Ford needs to do in their performance cars.
Thanks for the chat. If you had a shop, I'd buy stuff from you. I think Steeda and BMR could learn from this discussion on how to have a cordial debate and how being arrogant can lose customers.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2016
- Threads
- 71
- Messages
- 2,067
- Reaction score
- 1,592
- Location
- Pompano Beach, FL
- Vehicle(s)
- 2016 Mustang Q750
Awesome picture! Thank you for sharing!You can get all of the suspension/chassis stiffening parts in my signature for well less than $2500 as the value when choosing Steeda is incredible. You can call Steeda and have springs/dampers/camber plates all pre-assembled as well.
As far as springs, I love my Ultrailte Linears. The handling is aggressively refined (225 front/880 rear) and the "stance" is just where I like it (see below).
p.s. Whichever route you choose, invest the $20 on the Steeda clutch assist spring. Best mod I've done on any car, ever.
Steeda Tech
TheLion
Well-Known Member
@Eritas , I am a bit partial to BMR's approach to managing sub-frame movement with their CB005 kit. It's a very similar concept to the aluminum bushings offered by Ford Performance. However with the Ford Performance offerings, your removing the factory bushings all together and replacing them. It's permanent and provides no NVH isolation. But to be fair, 90% of noise is transmitted through the drive train (differential), not the sub-frame (IRS). Very little NVH is passed through the IRS itself.
The Ford Performance solution of using aluminum bushings is the lowest in weight, virtually no weight gain, provides the least movement and is of similar cost. However it's much more involved labor wise, cannot be reversed if you sell the car and reducing IRS deflection by 90% is more than enough to eliminate it as an issue for all but pure off-road racing applications or maybe on FI cars. Quite a few FI cars do run the CB05 very successfully as well however, so it's good enough for all but the most extreme applications. At some point a gain in performance may be so minuscule, even if real, it's of not practical value.
BMR's solution not only locks out the sub-frame, but also centers the sub-frame on the chassis mounting holes via their sub-frame to chassis braces which double as centering guides, but because the factory rubber bushing is still in place, it does provide some harmonic dampening, NVH increase is more or less non-existent as far as I can tell.
There's a less direct path for noise to travel using this method of locking collars over the top of crowned bushing center tube and the IRS frame tube it's attached to (via the rubber). Their CB05 kit weighs just 6.5 lbs on my food scale at home, and your removing 2.5 lbs (the stock sub-frame to chassis braces which weighed in at 1.25 lbs each), so your net gain is only 4 lbs. Not enough to matter. If your really after minimal weight gain, their CB10 kit is the CB05 kit sans the sub-frame to chassis braces. You could combine that with Steeda's delrin IRS centering shims and re-use the stock sub-frame to chassis braces. Net weight gain would probably be about 1~1.5lbs.
Each company has some good offerings in certain areas where in other areas their offerings might improve upon the car, but may not be as highly tuned as other offerings from another vendor. The trick it know which offerings are the best from brand x and y. And if they are inter-related (such as struts and springs), do they offer the best combination.
Brand x might offer better quality or more critically tuned struts while brand y offers higher quality and more consistent springs (due to material, production and testing), but when combined do they provide the best function? Some times it MAY be better to compromise absolute function or quality for the sake of how everything works together. Other times you can mix and match to get the best of both. Running BMR SP083's with FP Track struts is one such example.
The Ford Performance solution of using aluminum bushings is the lowest in weight, virtually no weight gain, provides the least movement and is of similar cost. However it's much more involved labor wise, cannot be reversed if you sell the car and reducing IRS deflection by 90% is more than enough to eliminate it as an issue for all but pure off-road racing applications or maybe on FI cars. Quite a few FI cars do run the CB05 very successfully as well however, so it's good enough for all but the most extreme applications. At some point a gain in performance may be so minuscule, even if real, it's of not practical value.
BMR's solution not only locks out the sub-frame, but also centers the sub-frame on the chassis mounting holes via their sub-frame to chassis braces which double as centering guides, but because the factory rubber bushing is still in place, it does provide some harmonic dampening, NVH increase is more or less non-existent as far as I can tell.
There's a less direct path for noise to travel using this method of locking collars over the top of crowned bushing center tube and the IRS frame tube it's attached to (via the rubber). Their CB05 kit weighs just 6.5 lbs on my food scale at home, and your removing 2.5 lbs (the stock sub-frame to chassis braces which weighed in at 1.25 lbs each), so your net gain is only 4 lbs. Not enough to matter. If your really after minimal weight gain, their CB10 kit is the CB05 kit sans the sub-frame to chassis braces. You could combine that with Steeda's delrin IRS centering shims and re-use the stock sub-frame to chassis braces. Net weight gain would probably be about 1~1.5lbs.
Each company has some good offerings in certain areas where in other areas their offerings might improve upon the car, but may not be as highly tuned as other offerings from another vendor. The trick it know which offerings are the best from brand x and y. And if they are inter-related (such as struts and springs), do they offer the best combination.
Brand x might offer better quality or more critically tuned struts while brand y offers higher quality and more consistent springs (due to material, production and testing), but when combined do they provide the best function? Some times it MAY be better to compromise absolute function or quality for the sake of how everything works together. Other times you can mix and match to get the best of both. Running BMR SP083's with FP Track struts is one such example.
Last edited:
Sponsored
BMR Tech
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2014
- Threads
- 168
- Messages
- 5,141
- Reaction score
- 3,691
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Website
- www.bmrsuspension.com
- First Name
- Dion
- Vehicle(s)
- 2018 GT, 2010 GT500, 2019 F-150 5.0
I can look into our dealers out that way and see if I can put together a solid recommendation for you.
I saw a few opinions on various mods throughout this post, and one about running a rear bar instead of a front. I would not spend your money based on what people who have not used this package of parts say - I promise you that the above parts are excellent for your goals. Adding a 980lb/in Rear spring AND a big bar out back is a quick way to run into super excessive oversteer with a stock front bar. Steering with the throttle is fun, but I suspect with the amount of oversteer you would get, you would not enjoy it, unless you are wanting to set the car up for drifting.
Feel free to shoot me an email to [email protected] and we can chat further, and I can also look into a competent installation shop for you.
Eritas
Well-Known Member
@TheLion - doesn't Steedas kit do essentially the same thing, locking out the movement, but the stock bushings still help with nvh? It seems like either option accomplishes the same goal.
I was saying Ford should install solid rubber bushings in the diff and subframe of their PP1, PP2, and GT350 cars from the factory, giving up a little nvh for improved performance, which would probably not increase nvh much atall if the Steeda and BMR lockout kits dont hurt nvh much.
I was saying Ford should install solid rubber bushings in the diff and subframe of their PP1, PP2, and GT350 cars from the factory, giving up a little nvh for improved performance, which would probably not increase nvh much atall if the Steeda and BMR lockout kits dont hurt nvh much.
Roadway 5.0
Strassejager
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2016
- Threads
- 57
- Messages
- 1,483
- Reaction score
- 1,780
- Location
- New York - USA
- First Name
- Mike
- Vehicle(s)
- 2016GT PP 6MT
- Vehicle Showcase
- 1
To clarify, my earlier post’s synopsis is that the PP front bar is more than sufficient with a 250lb/in spring, and that if the OP really wanted a bar, then he should get an adjustable rear-bar to tune to preference.
I see enthusiasts dumping off PP components often. While I agree the PP dampers and springs are lacking (badly, actually), the OEM front bar is damn good — especially when paired with an aggressive spring.
BMR Tech
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2014
- Threads
- 168
- Messages
- 5,141
- Reaction score
- 3,691
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Website
- www.bmrsuspension.com
- First Name
- Dion
- Vehicle(s)
- 2018 GT, 2010 GT500, 2019 F-150 5.0
I would dump the front bar all day, everyday.
The rear 22.2 is a great part, though.
Roadway 5.0
Strassejager
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2016
- Threads
- 57
- Messages
- 1,483
- Reaction score
- 1,780
- Location
- New York - USA
- First Name
- Mike
- Vehicle(s)
- 2016GT PP 6MT
- Vehicle Showcase
- 1
Touché.I would dump the front bar all day, everyday.
The rear 22.2 is a great part, though.
I tip my cap and defer to the “to each his own” adage on this one.
Sponsored