Has anyone sapped front lower control arms and or bushings?

03 DSG Snake · Aug 13, 2015

Edit: *swapped

And I am more interested in the FRPP and OEM variant style arms. I know a few aftermarket arms are out there. :beer:
/edit

Was searching around and only found results formrear lowers for the most part.

This article installing the FRPP arms looked pretty interesting. There are some revisions to the ball joint geometry as well as upgraded bushings.

http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArtic...ite-Reducing-understeer-with-Ford-Racing.aspx

These are the FRPP arms they used
http://fordperformanceracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=22437

There are also some other options floating around
http://www.steeda.com/05-10-mustang-front-lower-control-arms-with-bushings-777-4902/

I've always seen the hard core guys shying away from urethane in control arms and leaning towards delrin, but I don't think i've seen any delrin kits for these cars.

I am running delrin in the front and rear arms of my Cobra. Surprisingly smooth and quiet. :burnout:

Imatk · Aug 13, 2015

Would there be an issue with fitment on our cars?

Seems like a cool upgrade if they do fit.

einehund · Aug 13, 2015

I'd do it just to get the front end creak to go away. I know there was a TSB about it, but i was in germany when my warrantee expired, and I don't want to pay for the TSB.

03 DSG Snake · Aug 13, 2015

einehund said:
I'd do it just to get the front end creak to go away. I know there was a TSB about it, but i was in germany when my warrantee expired, and I don't want to pay for the TSB.

The TSB I have seen has balljoints that are 1mm larger in diameter. I never had mine done as well. The arm upgrade would handle the upgraded balljoints for me as well.

Robert M · Aug 14, 2015

I know it is to late now, but I wish someone would have made replacement cast aluminum LCA's for the front of the 2005-2014 Mustang, and then the cool ball joints and other upgrades in those aluminum arms...........

Billet alum. would have even been better, but also more expensive.

Making a mold of the current oem cast iron LCA's and then casting them in lighter aluminum instead, like some of the other Fords, would have been nice.

R

Tob · Aug 14, 2015

Robert M said:
Billet alum. would have even been better, but also more expensive.

Making a mold of the current oem cast iron LCA's and then casting them in lighter aluminum instead, like some of the other Fords, would have been nice.

Robert, the S197 front LCA's are high strength steel welded assemblies. Simply casting a mold from them for use with aluminum wouldn't be the best use of one's time. In order to come close to the original arm material properties any aluminum casting is going to be much larger if it was to minimize fatigue, etc. The factory Multimatic arms are pretty darn good to begin with. The linked FRPP arms are even better.

RedVenom48 · Aug 14, 2015

In all the mods I did in the rear (all BMR), I honestly not once thought the front needed an upgrade. Hard core road racers will notice a difference with stouter front stuff, but to me getting the rear end upgraded made all the difference in the world.

Robert M · Aug 14, 2015

Tob said:
Robert, the S197 front LCA's are high strength steel welded assemblies. Simply casting a mold from them for use with aluminum wouldn't be the best use of one's time. In order to come close to the original arm material properties any aluminum casting is going to be much larger if it was to minimize fatigue, etc. The factory Multimatic arms are pretty darn good to begin with. The linked FRPP arms are even better.

^^^I understand. I just see Shelby selling take-off aluminum control arms from Raptor pick up's and think WOW!! that is a much heavier vehicle and they have aluminum front control arms for weight reduction (I assume), wouldn't have been nice to reduce some weight through lighter aluminum LCA's?, especially when I see tube control arms added to the front of a heavy nosed GT500 and they seem to hold up. But, yes the Raptor alum. control arms are larger.

Those FRPP front LCA's are definitely a costly upgrade.............what is it? $700 for the arms (no bushings) and an additional $600 for the bushings? Am I seeing that correctly? OR is it $700 ready to bolt on? and $600 for those upgrade bushings installed on oem steel arms?

Tob - BTW, I just did some paint touch up (a couple of small nicks) on my right front oem LCA last week, and it appeared to have a cast look, not welded steel? I thought I saw a mold line on the outer edge? but I could be wrong, I did not examine it that closely, I just noticed that it also had a slightly rough look on it's black surface, like it had been cast and then coated/painted.

R

Tob · Aug 14, 2015

Robert M said:
Tob - BTW, I just did some paint touch up (a couple of small nicks) on my right front oem LCA last week, and it appeared to have a cast look, not welded steel? I thought I saw a mold line on the outer edge? but I could be wrong, I did not examine it that closely, I just noticed that it also had a slightly rough look on it's black surface, like it had been cast and then coated/painted.

Grab a cup of coffee and let's run through it. I promise you that you'll learn quite a bit that you maybe didn't know before. Let's go back in time for a bit...

The Multimatic I-Beam Control Arm is a stamped and welded steel I-beam lower control arm for McPherson strut suspensions. This innovative suspension component has weight, stiffness, packaging and cost advantages relative to other control arm technologies, and it provides a significant improvement in the performance of McPherson strut suspensions, which are widely used in lower cost, higher volume vehicles. The story of this innovation is a strong one: the technology represents a case of computer modeling overcoming seemingly impossible stamping difficulties, to arrive at an unprecedented level of stiffness cost-effectively. As a product it represents a significant advance in a component critical to driver-perceptible vehicle characteristics.

Multimatic’s intensive use of analysis in computer aided design of parts and tooling has permitted the development of the innovative cross-section in a stamped/welded control arm. The key to the superior stiffness of the new design is the folding of the base material so that it forms a double layer in the flange area of the I-beam cross section. This contrasts to existing box-section arms, which have only 1X base material throughout. In addition, because of the added strength in the Multimatic I-Beam Control Arm, it can be narrower in the neck area of the lower control arm, which provides more space and hence a significantly smaller turning radius. The flange configuration also permits better weld penetration and visual confirmation of weld penetration for better robustness and more consistent parts.

Multimatic I-Beam Control Arm was prototyped in December 2002 and awarded for the 2005 Mustang in February 2003. The many benefits of this innovative control arm permit front suspension performance in the 2005 Mustang that is equivalent to that of more expensive cars. Ford has recognized the contribution of this innovation in the news release on the new Mustang, emphasizing the front suspension and referring specifically to the new control arm and the “groundbreaking manufacturing technology” used to manufacture it.

The new arm has already produced a significant increase in Multimatic sales, and it is expected to be awarded for additional new platforms. The I-beam configuration is under patent application and has the potential of making Multimatic the dominant supplier of McPherson strut lower control arms.

Take a look at this quick read form Multimatic.

http://dev3.multimatic.com/latest-mm-news/multimatic-and-ford-a-winning-partnership-in-2005/

Now that you know a little about the arm and where it came from, let's take a very deep dive into why the factory arm Ford ultimately chose is so good. Note the other designs that were given consideration from the baseline, clamshell, a forging, and the I-beam. There is a ton of data here but it is well worth the time spent if you really want a better understanding.

http://www.autosteel.org/~/media/Fi...in Steel/GDIS 2010/15 - Lower Control Arm.pdf

View attachment 48819

03 DSG Snake · Aug 14, 2015

Tob,

The Only drawback I am seeing with the above linked FRPP arms would be the incompatibility with the MM kmember. The revised geometry of the new arms is supposed to correct roll center, which MM does as well with the K. Also MM states taller ball joints will not work, which the FRPP arms have as well.

Bad Company · Aug 15, 2015

You can buy the FRPP busing kit and to my knowledge install it on your existing control arms. This retains the stock roll center with the stiffer bushings. You may want to consider buy the newer controller arms of the later Mustangs with the bigger diameter ball joint, but that would also require a spindle swap. Upgrading to the MM K-member, the FRPP bushings and the updated control arms should give you the most structurally sound upgrade with the best handling for a street driven car.

Robert M · Aug 15, 2015

Bad Company said:
You can buy the FRPP busing kit and to my knowledge install it on your existing control arms. This retains the stock roll center with the stiffer bushings. You may want to consider buy the newer controller arms of the later Mustangs with the bigger diameter ball joint, but that would also require a spindle swap. Upgrading to the MM K-member, the FRPP bushings and the updated control arms should give you the most structurally sound upgrade with the best handling for a street driven car.

^^^^Shelby, has this control arm bushing kit listed for sale, I saw it a couple of weeks ago and the price seemed to be what I see quoted by FRPP above if I remember correctly.

R

Robert M · Aug 15, 2015

Tob said:
Grab a cup of coffee and let's run through it. I promise you that you'll learn quite a bit that you maybe didn't know before. Let's go back in time for a bit...

Take a look at this quick read form Multimatic.

http://dev3.multimatic.com/latest-mm-news/multimatic-and-ford-a-winning-partnership-in-2005/

Now that you know a little about the arm and where it came from, let's take a very deep dive into why the factory arm Ford ultimately chose is so good. Note the other designs that were given consideration from the baseline, clamshell, a forging, and the I-beam. There is a ton of data here but it is well worth the time spent if you really want a better understanding.

http://www.autosteel.org/~/media/Fi...in Steel/GDIS 2010/15 - Lower Control Arm.pdf

View attachment 48819

I will be turning my car around to pull the left front off and do some cleaning and lubing. I will look at the LCA a little closer, I guess I missed what is being described above. They just looked like heavy cast iron control arms at a glance, and I was thinking that if it was cast in iron, why couldn't it be cast in aluminum?

I need to look at the FRPP a little more also................If nothing else, it is always nice to see grease fittings on ball joints! and then whatever other advantages those FRPP arms offer.

R

Robert M · Aug 15, 2015

Tob said:
Grab a cup of coffee and let's run through it. I promise you that you'll learn quite a bit that you maybe didn't know before. Let's go back in time for a bit...

I found an eBay picture to discuss, it is easier to see what I am talking about with it off the car................

http://www.ebay.com/itm/10-13-Ford-...Arm-/251732855671?hash=item3a9c728b77&vxp=mtr

In the first auction picture, if you hover over the arm to enlarge it, that long sweeping piece that attaches the ball joint at one end, and the large bushing at the other appears to be cast iron (but after reading your Multimatic info. it may not be)? and then it looks like a ball joint receiver is welded on the end and a separate steel piece welded/added to provide attachment for the other bushing? So basically it would start out as 3-pieces? two steel and one cast? But this must not be the case and my thoughts at a glance are not correct.

So my thought was (not knowing that there were several components put together ass it appears in the eBay picture), why couldn't this have been cast in aluminum instead? cost?

R

Tob · Aug 15, 2015

03 DSG Snake said:
Tob,

The Only drawback I am seeing with the above linked FRPP arms would be the incompatibility with the MM kmember. The revised geometry of the new arms is supposed to correct roll center, which MM does as well with the K. Also MM states taller ball joints will not work, which the FRPP arms have as well.

Ahh, so you plan on adding MM's K? You are correct on the incompatibility. I've gone back and forth on purchasing the upgraded FRPP arms, swapping out the joints/selling them, etc. I simply haven't had the time to pursue it yet.

Bad Company said:
You can buy the FRPP busing kit and to my knowledge install it on your existing control arms. This retains the stock roll center with the stiffer bushings. You may want to consider buy the newer controller arms of the later Mustangs with the bigger diameter ball joint, but that would also require a spindle swap. Upgrading to the MM K-member, the FRPP bushings and the updated control arms should give you the most structurally sound upgrade with the best handling for a street driven car.

I agree with the above. The only caveat is the potential for a somewhat harsher ride on the street with the elimination of the hydro bushing.

Robert M said:
I found an eBay picture to discuss, it is easier to see what I am talking about with it off the car................

http://www.ebay.com/itm/10-13-Ford-...Arm-/251732855671?hash=item3a9c728b77&vxp=mtr

In the first auction picture, if you hover over the arm to enlarge it, that long sweeping piece that attaches the ball joint at one end, and the large bushing at the other appears to be cast iron (but after reading your Multimatic info. it may not be)? and then it looks like a ball joint receiver is welded on the end and a separate steel piece welded/added to provide attachment for the other bushing? So basically it would start out as 3-pieces? two steel and one cast? But this must not be the case and my thoughts at a glance are not correct.

So my thought was (not knowing that there were several components put together ass it appears in the eBay picture), why couldn't this have been cast in aluminum instead? cost?

Robert, if you have the time, go through the pdf I linked again. There is a detailed breakdown of the arm(s) including materials, forming techniques used, and strength (as well as cost, etc). Cast iron isn't used.

Aluminum could have been used. The linked pdf should have given you a feel as to why Ford chose the welded steel I beam design over others. In the pdf, an aluminum forging was tested, utilizing A6082-T6. Any type of casting would have been massive in order to meet minimum strength metrics and as mentioned, turning radius was a consideration that mandated that size be minimized.

Robert M · Aug 15, 2015

^^^Thanks Tob.

NVH was my other concern, as has been mentioned by others in the past who have installed poly bushing tube front control arms.

R

Tob · Aug 15, 2015

Note that the I beam arm in the pdf isn't identical to the '07 and up piece but close enough for discussion purposes. This paper was written subsequent to the introduction of the S197.

Robert M · Aug 15, 2015

Tob said:
Note that the I beam arm in the pdf isn't identical to the '07 and up piece but close enough for discussion purposes. This paper was written subsequent to the introduction of the S197.

I've tried multiple times to get the .pdf to fully load, but it stops shortly into the download. I did go to the website, but I don't see the same link or .pdf to view.

R

03 DSG Snake · Aug 15, 2015

Tob said:
Note that the I beam arm in the pdf isn't identical to the '07 and up piece but close enough for discussion purposes. This paper was written subsequent to the introduction of the S197.

One thing I noticed is the ball joint mounting flange appears to be welded on, rather than riveted per the Multimatic designs.

Tob · Aug 16, 2015

Robert M said:
I've tried multiple times to get the .pdf to fully load, but it stops shortly into the download. I did go to the website, but I don't see the same link or .pdf to view.

I downloaded the file on my PC, my Dell workstation laptop, and my droid, each without a hitch. My guess is that the issue is on your end. I'd try it again or double check your settings.

03 DSG Snake said:
One thing I noticed is the ball joint mounting flange appears to be welded on, rather than riveted per the Multimatic designs.

There are other applications that use a similar design. But you're correct Ron, on our S197 cars, there is a thick plate used to locate the ball joint that is indeed welded on and not riveted. I happened to have a box containing FRPP's M-3075-E on hand today and took a few shots of the arms. They are the same ones that came on the '07-'09 GT500 cars.