Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Roush anti-wheel hop kit
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Robert M" data-source="post: 13787166" data-attributes="member: 9628"><p>I agree, the Roush was not broke, point taken.</p><p></p><p>There just seems like a lot more than "anti-hop" that was incorporated into the oem redesign? and yes the oem still has a big rubber bushing, so there is hop. </p><p></p><p>I guess on this same thought, why did BMR do anything to their UCA design? A simple change of the front UCM mounting size like Roush did would be all that was needed? I don't think the older design BMR could be considered "broke"?</p><p></p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]536861[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>The 2008 oem, B4 2011 BMR, 2011-up oem and 2011-up BMR........</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]536862[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Why lengthen the BMR arm if there is no advantage to a longer arm? Why increase hardware size to something that wasn't considered "broke"?</p><p></p><p>I'm not trying to argue about UCA's, just trying to understand why others did some considerable upsizing when their UCA wasn't broke?</p><p></p><p></p><p>R</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Robert M, post: 13787166, member: 9628"] I agree, the Roush was not broke, point taken. There just seems like a lot more than "anti-hop" that was incorporated into the oem redesign? and yes the oem still has a big rubber bushing, so there is hop. I guess on this same thought, why did BMR do anything to their UCA design? A simple change of the front UCM mounting size like Roush did would be all that was needed? I don't think the older design BMR could be considered "broke"? [ATTACH=full]536861[/ATTACH] The 2008 oem, B4 2011 BMR, 2011-up oem and 2011-up BMR........ [ATTACH=full]536862[/ATTACH] Why lengthen the BMR arm if there is no advantage to a longer arm? Why increase hardware size to something that wasn't considered "broke"? I'm not trying to argue about UCA's, just trying to understand why others did some considerable upsizing when their UCA wasn't broke? R [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Roush anti-wheel hop kit
Top