2000 Cobra R suspension

[352Ford]

Read the FAQ, did a search, and didn’t really come up with much.

Other than stiffer springs, properly valved dampers, stiffer bushings, and smaller anti roll bars are there any other suspension changes to the 2000 cobra R from a normal mustang (cobra for the IRS)?

I guess I am just having a hard time convincing myself that a car can pull 1 g on a skid pad WITH street tires that has as poor of suspension geometry as our mustangs do with JUST stiff springs and dampers.

If it does have revised suspension pickup points, control arm length changes, balljoint height diffrences, etc. anyone mapped them out? That would be some great info to have…


Thanks

 

[cobra186]

That's pretty much it.... I would bet the '00R specific KD tires have a lot to do with that 1g skidpad also

 

[wheelhopper]

lets not leave out the 18X9.5 rims.

 

[352Ford]

I mean you compare this car to other “production” cars that are in the 1g skid pad range (your z06, viper, R8, etc) and they all have what appears to be not only far better kinematics, but also weigh less, lower CG, more rearward weight distribution, wider track width, etc. (essentially everything)

If that is true I have to say I am really impressed (or maybe just disappointed in the other cars performance) how much ford did with so little.

This may be a just a testament to brute force (stiff springs/dampers) being greater (or at least equal too) sophistication.

 

[ac427cobra]

This may be a just a testament to brut force (stiff springs/dampers) being greater (or at least equal too) sophistication.

Well that certainly applies to the 2000 R!!! epper: epper:

 

[Cobra-R]

I would assume that the alot of the reason for the impressive numbers would be because of the tires as mentioned above, as well the aggressive alignment (specifically camber) setting compared to a regular street car.

With the poor suspension geometry that the Mustangs have, they are going to benefit more from an aggresive suspension alignment than a Z06 is going to.

Also keep in mind that the skid pad testing does not show the real manners of the car in transition or anything else other than holding the car in a turn at a sustained speed.

I have driven both stock and modified Cobra R's on the track with sticky tires and they are not in the same league as a Z06. Never driven a Viper so I cannot comment.

Brian

 

[ac427cobra]

I have driven both stock and modified Cobra R's on the track with sticky tires and they are not in the same league as a Z06. Brian

Z06's are overrated! ;-) oke:

 

[Cobra-R]

Z06's are overrated! ;-) oke:

Naw, thier drivers are underrated. :lol: :lol: :lol: (or is it underskilled?)

 

[Robert M]

I mean you compare this car to other “production” cars that are in the 1g skid pad range (your z06, viper, R8, etc) and they all have what appears to be not only far better kinematics, but also weigh less, lower CG, more rearward weight distribution, wider track width, etc. (essentially everything)

If that is true I have to say I am really impressed (or maybe just disappointed in the other cars performance) how much ford did with so little.

This may be a just a testament to brute force (stiff springs/dampers) being greater (or at least equal too) sophistication.

The 1979 FOX chassis front end technology was mentioned by some magazine editors in the 2000 Cobra R tests "from the day". None of the other cars tested against the 00R in 2000/01 had suspension technology from 1979. The difference being the addition of springs, shocks/struts, 100 tread wear tires and the specific front end alignment for the 2000R. Yes, for primative suspension technology up front, the 00R Mustang did quite well against much newer technology in cars that were in a completely different league from a Mustang. That was/is very impressive!!

One of the editors mentioned that the family Fairmont has the same front chassis configuration as the 2000R. Many of the mainstream magazines had things to "pick on" when they tested the 2000R, and I guess they had reason to, after all, what was a "Mustang" doing running with the best that GM and Chrysler had to offer at that time, a Mustang??

R

 

[352Ford]

With the poor suspension geometry that the Mustangs have, they are going to benefit more from an aggresive suspension alignment than a Z06 is going to.

Also keep in mind that the skid pad testing does not show the real manners of the car in transition or anything else other than holding the car in a turn at a sustained speed.

That is very, very good point.

None of the other cars tested against the 00R in 2000/01 had suspension technology from 1979.

I am not looking for a fight, and I hate to break it to you, but double wishbone suspension with proper geometry have been around for a very long time. The McPherson strut stetup that is on our mustangs is actually a newer design (being created in the late 40s). While the whole point of the McPherson strut stet up is to cut costs it can be effectively used in performance cars (i.e. BMW M3) While I fully understand why Ford intentionally designs poor suspension geometry into the mustang, not a day goes by that I wish that they didn’t, expecialy for the higher end models (cobra, cobra R, mach 1, bullitt, etc).

 

[Robert M]

That is very, very good point.



I am not looking for a fight, and I hate to break it to you, but double wishbone suspension with proper geometry have been around for a very long time. The McPherson strut stetup that is on our mustangs is actually a newer design (being created in the late 40s). While the whole point of the McPherson strut stet up is to cut costs it can be effectively used in performance cars (i.e. BMW M3) While I fully understand why Ford intentionally designs poor suspension geometry into the mustang, not a day goes by that I wish that they didn’t, expecialy for the higher end models (cobra, cobra R, mach 1, bullitt, etc).

It just seemed that the 1988 Corvette that a very good friend of mine owned when new, and still does, had a very "Indy like" alloy control arm front suspension, with the transverse spring. I know that the 1982 Collector Edition that I personally owned did not look like that, it fell more in with the 68-82 set up except the "star wars" alloy housing I.R.S. added in 82 (I think), which for a Corvette was "aged" technology. I would have guessed that by 2000/2001, the Corvette front suspension would heve been even better than what came on an 1988 model? especially the Z06? If we are also including the rear suspension, yes, the 1999-up Cobra did get I.R.S. Some say this is good, others feel it is bad. I guess it depends upon the cars "use".


I guess in the end, SVT worked with what they had in the R-Models, which included no real change in front suspension design or technology, since 1979. But in the end Mustangs are "suppose" to be Pony Cars competing with Pony Cars, not the likes of the American premier sports car, and especially the Corvette Z06.

I think the best posted magazine spec. was 1.02g on the 2000 Cobra R, and I think .96g on the 95R.


I am taxing my brain right now, but did the Corvette suspension even change much in 1968? or was it basically what was introduced in 1963 with the addition of 4 wheel discs in 1965. Other than that the suspension was basically 1963-1982?, with a body change in 68?


R

 

[Robert M]

<<<I noticed your user "352Ford". Do you know what a current non-automotive use for the 352 Ford engine is, at least in Florida?

R