panhard bars in stock style suspensions

[98cobraRx]

Sometimes under hard braking you can experience it, I've never seen it on acceleration, only on braking.

Blacksheep is picking up what I am putting down. Under hard breaking they axle hop. Under acceleration I think they put down power beautifully. I have driven a couple F-body SCCA Solo National Championship winner or trophy cars. All of them axle hop under hard breaking to a degree but this is being picky.

Blacksheep, sorry if it seemed if I was calling you out in the other thread. It was not my intention. I was using my phone and I HATE typing on that thing.

First off, so far this is a great thread. It seems like most of the people that contributed participate in motorsports where they turn left, right and break :rockon: and for that you guys are awesome. I am an autocrosser and it is my favorite motorsport. I find that most of us who either autocross or road race seek as much perfection as we can achieve in our suspensions. With that said the points made in this thread are spot on.

I use to run my 98 cobra in ESP on a national level so I have some experience with the platform. However, and it is sad to say, I retired the car because once I drove an ESP prepped S197. I quickly realized that running the SN95 is a loosing battle.

At the heart of the matter, speaking from an autocrosser standpoint, I TOTALLY agree with Blacksheep on the PHB. It is not the best addition to the stock 4 link if an optimal suspension setup for corner carving is your goal. He alleuded to in the begining of his thread. Most of the guys on this forum street drive their car and drag race here an there so for them the phb is a decent cost effective option and that is great. For people looking for more, because of the flaws blacksheep talked about, a Watts, T/A, or steeda 5 link are the way to go.

Marcus Merideth's old ESP 95 cobra R clone runs the steeda 5 link with great results. That car is still competative in ESP and trophied this year. On a national level in ESP the SN95 platform is really becomming outdated, mainly due to the fact that the suspension geometry front and back is subpar (being generous) and relative to the rest of the cars the power plants (with the exception of the 95 cobra R) do not make good power for autocross purposes to be serious competators in ESP on a national level.

With that said as I am sure all of you agree, suspension setup is all about personal preference. Each one of the better suspension options for the SN95 platform all have their drawbacks so really it is all what you like.

If you guys are interested in discussing this more we could do so in this thread or a new thread. The conversation here has been great and it is nice to discuss suspension setups with people who road race or autocross their SN95s and have real life experience pushing their suspensions to the limit on the course.:beer:

 

[blacksheep-1]

How big of a difference would a phb make by itself?

IMO instant bind of the suspesnion

As far as the upper control arms I ended up going with the Steeda aluminum upper control arms because they came with the Steeda exclusive 3 piece bushing which is suppose to help eliminate the noise, vibration, and suspension bind problems. The problem is my car is so stiff now I am not sure if it is helping or hurting. What do you guys think?

hurting

Using the MM Panhard bar has anyone adjusted the bars angle to see if it makes a difference? Right now mine is parallel to the ground but I was just curious if anyone has tried it.
Overall the car seems fine to me on the track but maybe I just got used to it.

leave it parallel to the ground at normal ride height, although if you haven't changed the upper arms to something other than what you already have, your suspension is already in bind for the reason discussed in the OP.

Blacksheep, sorry if it seemed if I was calling you out in the other thread. It was not my intention. I was using my phone and I HATE typing on that thing.

no problem, it looked as if we were going to have an "intense discussion" and I didn't want to butcher the other guys thread. It looks like we're in a basic agreement on this though. :beer:

 

[bumsoil]

Wouldn't uca's with spherical bushings help eliminate bind when using a PHB or watts link? The bushings would not bind nearly as badly as with poly or rubber. And because they are not controlling side to side they only have to stop Axel windup. Because they are at an angle they would still have bind throughout their range of motion, but it may help. If the UCA is too stiff I think it would damage the mounting points. So if you put spherical bushings inn the stock UCA this could help a lot.

Does anyone know if you can buy steeda's UCA from their 5 link by itself? That plus a wats or phb would be awesome.

 

[98 Saleen Cobra]

If you want to run a "upper" you really need to do a third member on top of the housing like the S197's have.. This is the only real solution if you don't have a tq-arm..

 

[blacksheep-1]

So if you put spherical bushings inn the stock UCA this could help a lot.

THAT will work, (some) as mentioned in the OP because it adds to the flexibility of the UCA by increasing it's range of motion (for lack of a better term) before inducing the bushing material in the UCAs to flex. But when they are installed in a fabricated UCA you would lose that advantage because the fabricated UCAs have no ability to flex and will simply follow a standard arc.

I also found an old tech article on the EVM three link, I don't think this company is still in business, they also had some problems with ripping out floor pans before a redesign, still soem good ideas though.

http://www.streetstangs.net/showthread.php?t=280

 

[bumsoil]

I emailed steeda and asked of it was possible to buy their upper control arm assembly from their 5 link . I'll let you guys know what they say.

 

[blacksheep-1]

That is real close to the "poor man's 3 link" that I mentioned in the OP except they move the bracket out of the rearend housing and place it on the axle tube.

Found this......It's a little crude, but you have to admire the guy for figuring it out.

3 Link Rear Axle, Disc Brakes, and stuff

 

[98cobraRx]

What I would like to see someone try is the Fayes Watts and remove one of the stock upper links. The Fayes bolts to the frame of the car and then grabs the axle with two axle clamps. This should significant help with fore and aft as well as lateral placement of the wheel. The like the Fayes because in my opinion I am not sure I would feel comfortable removing one of the upper links with a diff mounted watts. Although, I believe Griggs website recommends removing one of the upper links so I guess you could do that to. Either way given how the Fayes bolts to the frame and how it mounts to the axle I thing it would be worth a shot. I can't try this because I have an IRS in my 98 with the FTBR bushing kit. Love it but lord was it pricey after it was all said and done. I almost want to get my hands on an SVO or 96-98 cobra to try the Fayes + PM 3 link route.

 

[98cobraRx]

If you could buy just the upper arms of the Steeda 5-link you could do that and combine them with a Griggs or other diff mounted Watts link. I don't think the Fayes would work because the Steeda arms are axle clamps and I bet those mount in a spot that would make it impossible to mount the Fayes arms.

 

[blacksheep-1]

The issue I see with the Steeda link is that I would prefer it to 1. hold the arm in "shear" (between the two brackets rather than at the end , 2. you're still going to have to reinforce the bracket area in the floor and 3. I wonder how well that locks onto the axle tube.
But it does seem to be a good start.

 

[bumsoil]

I got an response from steeda. He said they wont sell it separately.

 

[blacksheep-1]

Time to "borrow " one from somebody and copy it then. Although I don't think it would be too hard for any fabricator to duplicate via pics. Just keep the arm parallel to the bottom arms in all (3) planes, You'd have to figure on doing some math if you didn't know the length, and you could probably design-out any of the flaws.
Not that big of a deal. IMO

 

[bumsoil]

Time to "borrow " one from somebody and copy it then. Although I don't think it would be too hard for any fabricator to duplicate via pics. Just keep the arm parallel to the bottom arms in all (3) planes, You'd have to figure on doing some math if you didn't know the length, and you could probably design-out any of the flaws.
Not that big of a deal. IMO

That plus a pan hard or watts would be boss.

Wither way I'm getting a watts or panhard this summer.

 

[1997Cobra]

Ok,

Chrysler and Jeep have been using a 4 link with a PHB on their front ends for more then 25 years. If bind is the problem, then why is it that you can get an astronomical amount of travel out of these front ends, and still have stability?

In theory, the bind will stop all movement (and yes it does have bind) ONLY if all of the suspension joints are SOILD. You absolutely have to have at least 2 out of 10 suspension joints made out of rubber, not poly bushings.

My (and probably more then 1 million other peoples) jeep has about 10 inches of suspension travel on the front, without any troubles. Our mustangs do not travel any where near that amount, so a PHB should not be of any problem. The only time it becomes problematic is when you do not have at least 2 rubber bushings

 

[blacksheep-1]

Chrysler and Jeep have been using a 4 link with a PHB on their front ends for more then 25 years. If bind is the problem, then why is it that you can get an astronomical amount of travel out of these front ends, and still have stability?

Because the mustang 4 link is not designed to use a PHB, the upper arms control the centering of the axle.

The only time it becomes problematic is when you do not have at least 2 rubber bushings

what you say is true, but it's a poor way to design a suspension, the rubber bushings are forced into compliance by the PHB, result, a suspension that is always in bind.

 

[bumsoil]

Because the mustang 4 link is not designed to use a PHB, the upper arms control the centering of the axle.



what you say is true, but it's a poor way to design a suspension, the rubber bushings are forced into compliance by the PHB, result, a suspension that is always in bind.

The uca's prefer to be centered . they are putting eaqul force on each other in a effort to keep the Axel centered. without a PHB or watts one UCA gets strained more then the other in a turn causing the axel to have side to aide movement. With a device to center the axel it takes strain off the uca's putting them in their "ideal " postion. A watts or phb does nothing but help.

 

[blacksheep-1]

they are putting eaqul force on each other in a effort to keep the Axel centered.

Bind, right there before the car even moves. Even without a PHB. Now put a PHB in play at a different angle and now you have bind in 3 dimensions. The great design flaw is that they use the UCAs to do 2 jobs.
Here's a way to prove it, set the car down flat at ride height, then go adjust on the PHB, it will jack the car up on one side (measure at the fenderwell) the only thing that can do that is bind, even at stock ride height. If the suspension had a true 4 link it would simply move the body over, not up.

 

[bumsoil]

Bind, right there before the car even moves. Even without a PHB. Now put a PHB in play at a different angle and now you have bind in 3 dimensions. The great design flaw is that they use the UCAs to do 2 jobs.
Here's a way to prove it, set the car down flat at ride height, then go adjust on the PHB, it will jack the car up on one side (measure at the fenderwell) the only thing that can do that is bind, even at stock ride height. If the suspension had a true 4 link it would simply move the body over, not up.

The phb will cause AT MOST 3/4th inch of lateral movement. Which is are less then it would do in a hard corner. So yes, the suspention is FAR from ideal, but a phb will just aid. The movement baxk and forth from the phb will really be nothing compared to how it was before. a watts link won't let it move side to side at all so that's really the best option when retaining the stock UCA's.

This is all going off what I have read and what I can see myself. I don't have any experience with either.

 

[blacksheep-1]

OK , I understand your premise, that the PHB will only "assist" the UCAs staying centered and that will decrease the bind, good theory, your thinking, all good, but the problem with that is that the UCAs run in at 2 different angles, the panhard bar might work, if it could copy those angles, but it can't, it comes in at yet another angle, this actually binds it up in another direction, besides the 2 that are already inflicted by the UCAs. Seriously, if you have a panhard bar, go out and adjust it, the body of the car will move up, (or down depending on which way you twist) instead of the body moving sideways. That's a dead give away for suspension bind. As far as the jeeps using 4 links, those off road guys use everything, they get away with a lot because they use huge lengths on the arms, if you want to really look at suspensions go look at a DIRT late model, they use the suspension to actually change the wheel base in the corners, actually all cars do that to some extent but it's way more noticeable on a DIRT car.

29th USA 100 Dirt Late Model Feat Virginia Motor 8.9.08 - YouTube

 

[1997Cobra]

Because the mustang 4 link is not designed to use a PHB, the upper arms control the centering of the axle.

It is a triangulated 4 link, regardless. Every triangulated (even if it is only triangulated "a little") 4 link will have this problem.

what you say is true, but it's a poor way to design a suspension, the rubber bushings are forced into compliance by the PHB, result, a suspension that is always in bind.

Rubber bushings are forced into compliance in every situation unless the uppers are parallel to each other, and the lowers are parallel to each other (upper do not need to be parallel to the lowers however). And at that point, you have no control of the axle left to right.

The only time you will have a completely bind free suspension setup is if the above^ situation is true, or if you have triangulated uppers and lowers with spherical joints all around.

Bushings were designed you comply, it is their job, that is why they exist. A little bit of bind is not the end of the world.

But, as far as a dream setup, I would love to have an "A-arm" type 3 link. The upper link has 3 joints on it in the shape of an A, which would control the left to right movement of the axle. And the lower control arms are parallel to each other. There would be zero bind, and zero left to right axle movement because they would all be spherical joints.