The 5.8 Trinity Fits!!!
- Thread starter thePill
- Start date
Jroc , every Gen5 SS I stomp a mudhole in at the Dragstrip says otherwise. and right next to that Dragstrip is a AutoX track...the other night there were 6 cars on that road course...2 Porsches , 1 Lambo , 1 open wheel car , 1 Vette , 1 Mustang. Nobody cares about road racing in the real world.
I am planning on taking a hard look at the '17's...both the Mustang and the Camaro. There is still a ton of fun left in this car and I want a single digit timeslip.
Last edited:
my money is on this.
ford seems to be moving away (or has already moved) from this engine architecture
JROC,
I don't know what you are looking at to get your assumptions but give it time. I just did a basic search and most results are inconclusive of the Boss vs. 1LE times. Heck in all my track days i can count the number of Camaros ive seen on one hand. When talking to Ford racing i have learned that is about the experience not numbers. The mustang and the boss in particular, the magazines all say the same basic thing. Camaro may be slightly faster (depending on driver), but the mustang is leaps and bounds more fun, looks better, and sounds better. Ford is going for a ownership deal, numbers are for people who can't see past the surface and enjoy what they own. The rely on the numbers rather than actual experience. The Boss comes with better exhaust and a track date that you only really pay for the insurance. Chevy doesn't really do that. Chevy is looking at numbers, Ford is looking at the experience.
Boss Mustang 302 Versus Chevrolet Camaro 1LE - Comparison Tests - Road & Track
Real world Boss 302 vs. 1LE Virginia magazine laptime - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
I don't know what you are looking at to get your assumptions but give it time. I just did a basic search and most results are inconclusive of the Boss vs. 1LE times. Heck in all my track days i can count the number of Camaros ive seen on one hand. When talking to Ford racing i have learned that is about the experience not numbers. The mustang and the boss in particular, the magazines all say the same basic thing. Camaro may be slightly faster (depending on driver), but the mustang is leaps and bounds more fun, looks better, and sounds better. Ford is going for a ownership deal, numbers are for people who can't see past the surface and enjoy what they own. The rely on the numbers rather than actual experience. The Boss comes with better exhaust and a track date that you only really pay for the insurance. Chevy doesn't really do that. Chevy is looking at numbers, Ford is looking at the experience.
Boss Mustang 302 Versus Chevrolet Camaro 1LE - Comparison Tests - Road & Track
Real world Boss 302 vs. 1LE Virginia magazine laptime - Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
Believe it when you see it, not when someone claims that the 5.8 is coming in the 15ing.
First let me apologize again. My plans feel threw last night so I started drinking like a low life, and internet posting which often don't equal a good thing. But it stayed polite so it wasn't too bad I guess.
Still a Gen4 Fbodies suspension was much better than a Foxbody/SN95's suspension. Case in point when people modify a old Mustang to handle they basically turn it into a Fbodies setup other than sometimes people stick with struts instead of spending on a SLA front suspension like the Gen4's had.
Here's the new Mustangs suspension:
I just looks compromised. It's not your typical RWD performance car design. Even though it's not somehow the rear suspension resembles a strut setup to me. I guess it's because the lower control arm looks beefy as hell, where the rest of the links look small and weak and only have one mounting point to the chassis. Very different than your typical double A-arm style setup found on your Camaro's, Vette's Vipers, Z cars, GTR's, etc, etc, etc, etc. To me it looks very budgeted. Maybe it's lighter, but IDK.
The front suspension is a strut setup that's very different from most strut setups I've seen as well. I can't figure out why Ford did this other than maybe to save some weight. Typically you would see a A-arm which mounts at 2 points of the chassis. This things control arms mounts at one point of the chassis. This means Ford had to add these tension links which basically acts like a panhard bar for the lower control arms. Where a panhard bar is there to keep a SRA from moving side to side, these tension arms are used to keep the lower control arms from moving back and forth as seeing how it's only mounted to one point of the chassis the lower control arms are going to want to move forward and back.
I just wish Ford would give some honest insight as to why they decided on this design instead of a more traditional layout because just looking at it it doesn't as efficient as a traditional setup and it look compromised to me.
Ford needs to hire someone who's like minded to John Coletti IMO. I hate to ride the mans nuts, but Coletti was all about the enthusiast, and he was honest with unlike the people now in his position at Ford. Coletti wasn't overly worried about making Ford big profiles. Coletti wanted to give the enthusiast and average working man a lot of performance bang for their buck, and IMO that's the reason he left Ford. Ford didn't like that Coletti took such a hard stance about using things like Manley rods, McLeod flywheels, IRS's, aluminum driveshalves, SC'ers, etc on their niche low volume vehicles and then demanded that they sell them at a low price. As much as I think Al Oppenheiser acts like a douche with his mouth saying things like "Mustang fans need to thank them(the ZL1 design team) for the 2013 GT500", or "his goal is to beat the shit out of anything that Ford offers" or whatever else, the man is good for the Camaro enthusiast. John Coletti had that same mentality for Ford. He wanted to beat its competitions ass with Fords.
Most manufactures have their performance vehicle/vehicles that really aren't about making the company big profits, and they may loose money on it, but it's about bragging rights. The GT500 might be that, but it's a compromised platform for such a powerful car. When asked about why Ford runs such small tires on their high perform Mustangs the chief engineer at SVT wants to use the "better steering fee"l and "less likely to follow ruts with smaller tires" arguments. BS. Own it. The reason Mustang is spec'd with such small rubber is because it simply will not house any bigger rubber or at least they couldn't legitly add bigger rubber on an assembly line. If the Mustang would house 285's/315's F/R then that's what the GT500 would be rocking from the factory. Ford needs to throw the performance side of Mustang a bone on these kinds of issues, and not make the performance model engineers have to start from a compromise position, and that also leads back to my concerns with the suspension setup. If they are going to be offering $60K+ Mustangs with huge HP then they need to come correct and not just with with a powerful motor, but also a chassis setup that's legitly capable of handling it and running with or better more expensive competition in area's other than just HP.
As far as using a 5.8 in the new Mustang that's a bad idea IMO. The Coyote is great, and better than the older Modulars for the Mustang. It's smaller, lighter, shorter, more compact, and all things equal makes more power than a old style Modular. If Ford adds some DI, and a blower to a 5.0 then people will start forgetting about the 5.8. Much props to Ford for the new 5.0 motors.
Last edited:
Front suspension is definitely odd to me...looks flimsy for a high performance car , but wtf do I know?
The '15's front suspension is an upgraded MacP strut system that the S197 uses now... It now has an additional link to combat the very thing you were worried about before...
So, if the single link MacP strut system can handle 662hp applications, the double link can do it just as good...
Last edited:
This. He was asked if it will fit in the car and his response was that, with modifications, yes it will fit. He didn't say the factory will be releasing one.
The S197's struts are different, and beefer looking. They mount to 2 points on the chassis. The extra link on the new Mustangs front suspension is nothing more than something to keep the forward and aft movement that the single mounting point lower control arm is going to want to do in check. The extra link does the same thing to the new front lower control arms that a panhard bar does for a SRA. It's a totally unnecessary mod for a control arm that mounts to 2 points on the chassis.
I'm sure it works, but the vehicle is supported by front control arms that mount to a single point on the chassis instead of 2. Having 2 links does not mean the new Mustangs front setup is stronger or more robust than the outgoing Mustangs.
S197 front struts:
S550 suspension that you can see the front suspension setup in:
Last edited:
The S197's struts are different, and beefer looking. They mount to 2 points on the chassis. The extra link on the new Mustangs front suspension is nothing more than something to keep the forward and aft movement that the single mounting point lower control arm is going to want to do in check. The extra link does the same thing to the new front lower control arms that a panhard bar does for a SRA. It's a totally unnecessary mod for a control arm that mounts to 2 points on the chassis.
I'm sure it works, but the vehicle is supported by front control arms that mount to a single point on the chassis instead of 2. Having 2 links does not mean the new Mustangs front setup is stronger or more robust than the outgoing Mustangs.
S197 front struts:
S550 suspension that you can see the front suspension setup in:
Incorrect... The Tension Link and Lateral Link replaced the massive, lower arm. The strut/spring is literally the same. The MacP strut serves as the upper control arm. It has been that way since the Boss 302 in 1969, this MacP system offers greater tune-ability, brake, wheel and tire clearances, weight reduction vs. the S197 MacP system and the cost is relatively the same.
I was initially told the Mustang would use VP suspension (paired with CBIRS)... While the live axle was kicked to the curb, the MacP system evolved. It did so with the approval of most Mustang fans...
Last edited:
LOL! Not even the viper owners around here show any interest in road course racing! I love how people have started crowing all this crap about numbers on a ring when 999 out of a 1000 probably don't even know the location of a road course track. The GM sympathizers are always gonna crow about something. It's amusing!!!
Well yeah when talking a Macpherson strut setup the term strut is used so frequently that you start using it incorrectly.
Going off the picture the Lateral Link is what's supporting the front of the car. Or at least from the knuckle to the chassis. It and the strut setup is what's supporting the cars weight and absorbing the loads that are put on the suspension. Again the Tension Link doesn't make the front suspension any stronger or beefer and better able to sock up a shock any more than a panhard bar does to a SRA they just check the control arms new found tendency to move forwards and backwards during braking, cornering, and just normal driving in check.
I'm sure it does it's job, but it's just like..........Why? The only reason I can think to go to a setup like that is for a weight reduction. :shrug:
Last edited:
No no... On ALL MacP systems, the actual Strut/Spring supports the weight via the forged steel knuckle (aluminum in the future). That Tension link absorbs lateral and twisting forces while the wheels turn under steering. The Lat Link also absorbs lateral forces (like the new IRS's IL Link). These two links can be tuned independently for camber and toe...
The old MacP systems were only a single A link that could not be adjusted at all. It didn't matter because the SRA couldn't either...
The 5th Gen uses the old MacP system and an IRS... Who told them that would be a good idea is beyond me. IRS can be adjusted, MacP can't... If Ford stuck with the old MacP system, they would be able to tune the rear suspension but not the front like the 5th Gen Camaro... Stupid if you ask me...
Last edited:
correct weight reduction and it allows a wider front tire iirc.
Yes you are correct the strut is supporting the weight of the vehicle. What I'm trying to say is the lateral link on this car is whats having to support the abuse that's going to get put on the control arm/arms. In fact it is the front control arm basically. If it works well then great. I hope so. It looks to be a noticeably lighter setup. I'm just resorting back to Fords history of trying to re-invent the wheel so to speak when coming up with their suspension setups. They try to be too smart and innovative, but not in terms of advancing the design, but in simplifying and lessening it's cost. Examples are the Foxbodies angled upper rear controls arm which were tasked with not only doing the traditional job of a upper control arm on a SRA, but also the panhard bars job so that they could not have to use a panhard bar or watts link. It was a very poor design, as was the Modified Macphersons. I don't necessarily think that it's general design was bad as much as it was just a bunch of cheap stamped steel with poor geometry for the car. Twin I-Beams are another example of a less than stellar design from Ford.
You're saying that the Tension rods, and Laterial links(lower control arms) allow you to adjust the alignment on the car when working in conjunction with one another? I'm sure adjustable links will become a very popular mod with the S550 then. One thing I've been wondering is how the tension link is going to affect tire clearance. It looks awfully in the way of a big front tire trying to turn sharp. Hopefully I'm wrong.
IDK we'll just have to see how the car does. I'm sure it's going to be very good, I'm just not sure it's going to be good enough to match the performance potential of the next Generation of it's main rival which I feel Chevrolet is going to work real hard at making very good, and resolving some of the issues with the Gen5.
Last edited:
Ah, I do understand the concern about the new Tension and Lateral links durability. Try not use the "size" of the control arms as a benchmark. Instead, try to imagine the "efficiency of design" and what improvements could be made over a steel casting. The same principle was used in the new IRS in what they call the "Integral" Link.
Before, Control Blade used HUGE trailing arms to do what the IL links do now... Just 1/64th the size...
It is easier to beef up those two links when needed (if needed).
Advantages are...
Larger disc brakes
Larger wheel width
Wider tire
Less Weight
Adjustable front Toe angle
Adjustable front Camber angle
Same cost (maybe cheaper by now)
Possibly greater durability using advanced forging techniques and metals.
Less moving parts then traditional Double Wishbone AND more durable
More tune-ability then the previous MacP strut.
This is not the Fox body...
This is not the SN95......
This is not the S197........
This is not the old Mustang.............
This is not the old Ford......................
Edit: Besides, it would be the bushings that fail and those can't get any stronger.
Last edited:
Users who are viewing this thread
