First full track day - front end push!

Gab

Bullitthead
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Posts
100
Reaction score
9
I just wanted to chime in in your high rpm lock out. I tried a braided line - didn't work. What ended up working, (and working very well) was replacing the clutch matercylinder with the gt500 part....I will dig up the part number when I get to work. But basically it has a better ratio and will give your clutch more "disengagement". It completely fixed my problem.

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

Very good to know, please share that part number - thanks!
 

fast Ed

forum member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Posts
312
Reaction score
4
Location
Caledon, Ontario CANADA!
What year GT500 did you use a cylinder from? When I look at the 2005-2010 part number, it's the same as the GT for those years. 11-14 is different, but again it is the same part number as for the GTs those years.
 

SoundGuyDave

This Space For Rent
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Posts
1,978
Reaction score
27
Everybody at the track is correct.
What you are feeling is driver feedback through the steering.
When you have -1° camber but the car leans over 3-5° the front end washes out mid corner [ but it will turn in OK because the car isn't leaning over yet]

I'll try and explain it easier .
Go going back to newton's laws of equal & opposite reactions. Moving mass will continue in a straight line until it is met with an equal and opposite force.
So Weight needs to overcome by Steering [traction]
So at the LIMIT of traction the heaviest end want's to continue in a straight line [understeer in a front heavy car, or oversteer in a rear heavy car]

Most vehicles have stiffer suspension to support more weight, hence the wheel rate on the front suspension is stiffer than the rear.

Now here is the Trick.
When the front end of the car bodyrolls 5°, the rear end of the car also bodyrolls 5° [unless the chassis is soft]

So if you stiffen up the rear end so at the same G's of weight transfer it will only bodyroll eg: 4° , the rear end will support more of the total weight transfer.
In simple terms you are tricking the TYRES into "thinking the car has more rear weight"
So it will over load the rear tyres Before the front tyres reach the limit.
[the opposite to what you have now]

A lot of people misunderstand this concept because they only think about roll centres when both front and rear RC's are actually a roll axis [the whole chassis rolls together the same amount along this axis]

The Stiffest end will always slide out first.

If you cant get an adjustable rear bar, install stiffer rear springs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry is absolutely correct so far as it goes, and if you read books like "Tune To Win" by Carrol Smith, it all makes sense.

However.

The fly in the ointment here is that all of the above assumes proper contact-patch management. Remember that every control input to the car translates THROUGH the contact patch. If you alter the contact patch, you also alter the behaviour of the chassis as well. Throw some race rubber (hi-grip) up front, and put bicycle tires in the back, and you WILL have an oversteer machine, without altering the roll centers, roll couple, or wheel rates.

We drive MacPhereson strut cars, and those are a "special case" exception-to-the-rule. When you load a McStrut car up in a corner (entry or mid-corner, pure roll analysis), you will naturally compress the outside front suspension. With a McStrut, the more you compress the suspension, the more POSITIVE camber you induce to the static setting, and it increases on a rising curve, not linear. With a static negative camber, let's say stock-ish at around 1.0*, it doesn't take much loading to have the tire "standing up" vertically, maximizing the contact patch. Easily achievable with a stock-sized all-season tire. Throw on some sticky street tires? There will be enough load transfer onto the outside front to compress it to the point where the static -1* isn't enough to compensate, and you will wind up with POSITIVE camber at the wheel. That means you're riding around on the outside edge of the tire, not the full tread face. Reduced contact patch means reduced tractive capacity, and thus that corner looses traction first. Note that the rear (solid rear axle) doesn't exhibit nearly that much of a negative effect, as it's anchored by a bloody great chunk of iron, and the only real camber loss is found in tire carcass shift.

So, flying in the face of most tuning theory, if you STIFFEN the FRONT wheel rate in roll (either through stiffer springs or a heavier bar, or both), you will reduce the amount that the outside suspension compresses, allowing for a maximized contact patch without excessive static negative camber. If you have a 9" wide rear contact patch, and a 5" wide front contact patch, the front is going to give up first. You can, as Kerry suggests, dial in -3* of static negative camber, which will help dramatically at the track, as it allows SO much more camber-gain before the tire goes over-square. It will also cut into your braking ability and wear the inside edge of the tire fairly badly at all times that it's not cornering. On the street? It'll cut the life of your tires by 75%.

If you're trying to visualize the front suspension (front view), you have what essentially amounts to a triangle. The FLCA pivot points are fixed, as is the strut mount at the top. The apex with the tire is free to pivot, as the strut can compress and expand, and the ball joint allows change of angle. Of note, here, is that the spindle (and thus wheel) is fixed relative to the lower portion of the strut. Static, the FLCA is roughly flat relative to the track. As the suspension begins to compress, though, the FLCA pivots upwards at the ball joint, the strut compresses, and the entire tire/wheel/upright moves upward and inward. Simple logic will tell you that as it moves inward, it will gain positive camber since the top pivot point (strut mount) is fixed. Thus you gain positive camber. To combat this, you have four main options.

1) Reduce the load transferred to the suspension. In other words, slow down and don't corner so fast. (Not exactly what we want to do!)

2) Add static negative camber to "preload" the angle so that in the corner it comes back to near zero, which maximizes the contact patch area. It also burns the inside of the tire off in short order and will also reduce the braking capability somewhat.

3) Reduce the tractive capability of the OTHER end of the car (heavy rear bar/spring) to match. It'll be slow, but at least it'll be balanced... (BOO!!)

4) Increase the wheel rate to reduce the amount of motion, and add a bit of static negative camber. Heavier spring rates, or higher bar rates or both will accomplish this, at the expense of ride quality. This effectively "locks out" the front suspension in roll, but still allows some movement for longitudinal load transfer (accel/braking).

FWIW, I'm set up with 750lb front springs, the Steeda bar on full-stiff (Just about the same as the Strano bar), run either Hoosier R or Pirelli DH race rubber and have a -2.7* camber spec. My rear bar (Strano) is on full soft, and I run 300lb springs in back.

The "youtube tags" didn't seem to work for me, so here's the URL:
https://youtu.be/LmNb2Vq-GBs
It's a pair of 80% pace laps, in a track-day environment with full point-by passing rules in effect. Essentially a Sunday drive, but still good enough for around 1.5G in the corners, even on a bumpy track. About 7 seconds off "race pace," no sliding, no drama. Had to behave, as I was instructing that day... ;-)

The camber-gain issue is why "proper" race cars run SLA designs.
 

slackinoff

Senior Member
S197 Team Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Posts
843
Reaction score
9
Location
East Texas
Very good to know, please share that part number - thanks!

Edit***** Aparently there are different part numbers for rhe gt500 master cylinders.....let me so some recon on which one I used******brb

I used the 2013 GT500 master cylinder. Ford (DR3Z-7A543-A) Got it from. Tasca for aroud $80. This master cylinder gets you way more clutch disengagement and solved my high rpm lockouts.....now the clutch disengagement is high up on the stroke ( which I don't prefer, but it's so much better than lock out or engagement/disengagement right off the floor and lockout. You will have a lot of dead space because the last half or 3/4 travel does nothing....you are fully released at that point. So here's what I did.

If you take a peak under the dash at the clutch pedal and how it works....you will notice that there is a "pad" that the pedal bottoms out at. You can pull that white pin out and replace the rubber pad with something much thicker. Also probably have to source a longer "push pin" if you increase that pad spacer by a good bit. Trust me, once you get down there and look at it and pull on it and it pops out, you will understand how you could modify where the pedal "bottoms" out sooner now.

One of the problems is the ridiculous PLASTIC eyelet that attaches the master cylinder arm to the pedal.......plastic.....so stupid! Mine was worn out and a stock, non gt500 replacement probably would have fixed my high rpm lockout.

Check out this link for a how to.......https://themustangsource.com/forums/f657/anybody-wanna-guess-what-542150/#post6991760

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

fast Ed

forum member
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Posts
312
Reaction score
4
Location
Caledon, Ontario CANADA!
Edit***** Aparently there are different part numbers for rhe gt500 master cylinders.....let me so some recon on which one I used******brb

I used the 2013 GT500 master cylinder. Ford (DR3Z-7A543-A) Got it from. Tasca for aroud $80. This master cylinder gets you way more clutch disengagement and solved my high rpm lockouts.....now the clutch disengagement is high up on the stroke ( which I don't prefer, but it's so much better than lock out or engagement/disengagement right off the floor and lockout. You will have a lot of dead space because the last half or 3/4 travel does nothing....you are fully released at that point. So here's what I did.

There we go ... that is specifically for 2013-2014 GT500 only, I didn't think to go up that far in the listing. Makes sense that they would need a better part to go with a clutch that handles 662 hp!
 

slackinoff

Senior Member
S197 Team Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Posts
843
Reaction score
9
Location
East Texas
There we go ... that is specifically for 2013-2014 GT500 only, I didn't think to go up that far in the listing. Makes sense that they would need a better part to go with a clutch that handles 662 hp!
Hey Fast Ed...I talked to the guy that is developing the adjustable master cylinder... He sent me back an AWESOME email. I probably shouldn't share it direct directly. I will ask him. But for now, check your pms in about 30 min!

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk
 

stevbd

forum member
Joined
Jun 24, 2016
Posts
151
Reaction score
26
Personally I would spend the $4-500 on good adjustable camber plates before doing new sway bars. They're super easy to adjust for max camber trackside and then return to normal alignment when done, 5-10 mins. I wore my front tires more in 1 track day without camber plates than in 3 days with them.

Plus, as much as possible, it's always better to increase the grip of the end of the car that doesn't have enough, rather than reduce the end that has too much.
 

stevbd

forum member
Joined
Jun 24, 2016
Posts
151
Reaction score
26
Concerning tires, I run 275/40/18 square on 18x9.5 and that seems to work pretty well. As others have said, 18x10 or 18x11 would be better, but it does seem you could run a wider tire on the rims you have. But a wider square setup won't solve your understeer problem, of course, it will just happen at higher speeds.
 

kerrynzl

forum member
Joined
May 31, 2017
Posts
116
Reaction score
19
Location
Tauranga, New Zealand
Personally I would spend the $4-500 on good adjustable camber plates before doing new sway bars. They're super easy to adjust for max camber trackside and then return to normal alignment when done, 5-10 mins. I wore my front tires more in 1 track day without camber plates than in 3 days with them.

Plus, as much as possible, it's always better to increase the grip of the end of the car that doesn't have enough, rather than reduce the end that has too much.

The only way to increase grip [or reduce it] is by altering the tyres.
Grip and Handling should be treated separately.

What we're trying to do is balance the loads onto the tyres [dynamic not static]
Right now a disproportionate amount of load is going onto the outside front tyre [overloading it] . This load comes from the SAME amount of bodyroll.

If the car was balanced better, it would could corner faster.

The camber plates are a very good 1st choice [I have always suggested a competition wheel alignment as a 1st mod]

Dave suggested earlier to add neg camber and stiffen the front. Well he is somewhat correct here. This will improve the present situation and was the common method in the days of open diffs.[keep the rear soft like Lotus Cortinas]
This method also adds to the excitement because the car will "Carry the inside front" through corners.
It will improve cornering, but as the "anti gets upped" it will understeer at a higher cornering loads.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
Lotus Cortina - a regular (if really low-volume) production car.


Same basic principles apply, though the detail solutions will necessarily differ.

Norm
 
Last edited:

SoundGuyDave

This Space For Rent
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Posts
1,978
Reaction score
27
The only way to increase grip [or reduce it] is by altering the tyres.
Grip and Handling should be treated separately.

I have to disagree. How do you alter the "handling balance" of the car if the grip at each end remains the same? Max potential grip is absolutely only affected by the tires. Max achievable grip, however, depends strictly on maintaining the "best" contact patch.

What we're trying to do is balance the loads onto the tyres [dynamic not static]
Right now a disproportionate amount of load is going onto the outside front tyre [overloading it] .
Correct, as far as it goes. The outside front tire's contact patch is being overloaded, but the root reason is that the contact patch itself is compromised. Stock, the S197 will chew the outer 1/3 of the tire apart when tracked hard, primarily due to the camber-gain curve of the McStrut suspension, which is the root cause of the compromised contact patch. Camber dynamically goes positive as the suspension compresses, riding on the outer edge of the tire and reducing the surface area of the contact patch, and thus the ultimate possible grip of the tire. Where that leaves us is applying the proper fix...

If the car was balanced better, it would could corner faster.
I disagree strongly with this as a blanket statement. If we're overloading the front, and reduce the grip in the back to "balance better," how would that make the car go around a corner faster, now that it has less total grip? It's still grip-limited in the front. That, in turn, limits the max speed (and LatG) in the corner. If the LatG limit doesn't change, how can balance increase speed?

The camber plates are a very good 1st choice [I have always suggested a competition wheel alignment as a 1st mod]
Again, agreed, as far as it goes. If this is the ONLY mod, you have a major compromise. With the stock noodle springs and underdamped valving in the struts, you will need a ridiculous amount of static negative camber to maximize the contact patch at max load, assuming you don't wind up on the bump-stops before you get there. That static negative camber (your suggested -3*) will cause the car to run around on the inside edge of the tire at all times when it's NOT at max lateral load. Cutting your contact patch by a third (guesstimate) under braking is hardly ideal. Nor is the temp spread you'll get in the tire carcass between inside and outside, or the excessive inside-edge wear if you street-drive that alignment.

Dave suggested earlier to add neg camber and stiffen the front. Well he is somewhat correct here. This will improve the present situation and was the common method in the days of open diffs.[keep the rear soft like Lotus Cortinas]
This method also adds to the excitement because the car will "Carry the inside front" through corners.
It will improve cornering, but as the "anti gets upped" it will understeer at a higher cornering loads.
I think the Lotus comment is a bit of a red herring. Not much (if any!) similarity between the S197 and the Cortina. That said, the GOAL was the same: manage the contact patch so that you get as much of the POSSIBLE grip as you can. With the S197, you've got a lot to work against, and some of the "easy button" solutions are simply untenable. Increasing front anti-dive is one of them. The benefits are huge. More of the load transfer under braking is directed through the suspension links, not through the spring/shock, which reduces the nose-dive. That means that the suspension compression is reduced, and the camber change minimized. Unfortunately, it also means Delrin and high-durometer poly bushings to support it, which in turn puts the stress through the strut body as a bending load, which anything short of a full-race inverted 40mm-piston-equipped damper is simply not designed to handle long term. Harsh street conditions will also impose may of the same stresses, and this is particularly true of a street-trim 3800lb car. The dampers that are can withstand that kind of load are also the type that should be rebuilt every couple-three races, which is also impractical for street usage. So, without the increased anti-dive, you need to hike the front spring rates to keep from face-planting the car. This has the side-benefit of reducing, somewhat, the amount of static negative camber you need to run, as the car won't roll quite as much given the same load transfer. See where this is headed? Now, if you were to bump up the bar rates a bit as well, to control the body roll (and corresponding suspension range of motion) even further, you could again reduce the amount of static negative camber needed...

Kerry, I'd like to ask, and I mean absolutely ZERO disrespect with this question... Have you driven an S197 in stock form on track? I have no idea how common (or not) they are in NZ in unmolested form. You're knowledgeable about a lot of the "pointy end" tuning tricks for race cars, but it just seems to me that you're mentally starting with your FR500C as a "stock" template. In reality, that couldn't be further from the truth. The 500C has had most (but not all) of the factory evils exorcised already, and was professionally engineered as a factory-supported pure race car. The modified street cars that most of us are tooling around in are completely different animals.

Also, FWIW, the FR500C FLCA bushings are Delrin and poly, and the rear mount already adds some anti-dive that the Sachs dampers are able to handle. Next time you're under there, take a look at your rear upper arm. See that huge, beautiful Heim joint? Stock, it was rubber about as soft as the average pencil eraser... If the 500C is your "starting point" for tuning advice, then a lot of things are starting to make sense to me.
 

kerrynzl

forum member
Joined
May 31, 2017
Posts
116
Reaction score
19
Location
Tauranga, New Zealand
I used the MK1 Lotus Cortina as an example , because they had 2 very different setups in the same car.
The early cars [with open diffs] had the famous A frame rear, and were very soft in the rear. They would 3 wheel [or carry the front] through corners.
The later "Aerovent" MK1 Lotus Cortina had a Slipper Diff and went back to stiffer leaf springs. It never carried the front wheels on corners

The Alan Mann team driven by sir John Whitmore won every race in 1966 [beating the A frame "works" Cortinas]

IT WAS ONLY USED AS AN EXAMPLE, the laws of physics still apply. the Roll couple still needs to be balanced correctly. The Cortina and the S197 both have strut front ends and Live rear axles.

[Quote "How do you alter the "handling balance" of the car if the grip at each end remains the same?" Quote]

First off, the grip of the tyres is not the same if one end is overloaded well before the other end approaches the limit.
Stiffening the rear, is not Decreasing the grip of the rear [it is nowhere near the limit], it is increasing the grip of the front by reducing load
[BTW grip isn't the correct term to use]

With all respect the last time I drove a car in stock form on the track, it had a trailer behind it.
BUT in this thread we are not talking about a stock S197 anyway, The OP even wrote his current setup

[Quote : My current setup:

255/45/18 BFG sport comp 2's (front/rear)
2007 OEM GT500 wheels 18x9.5
Ford Racing Struts
Eibach sportline springs
GT500 front brembo's
Rear Tubular control arms (upper and lowers) and aftermarket UCA mount
Adjustable panard bar
Stock front/rear sway bars :Quote]

If he biffed the springs in the trash and used the correct stiffness springs for the intended usage along with cambers plates ,it would be a good start.
 
Last edited:

RJdude3

Junior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Posts
33
Reaction score
0
This is a street-driven Mustang, not a Lotus Cortina.

+1

I do appreciate the other suggestions but I always balance out how the mods will effect it on a daily basis.

Down the road, maybe when i buy a new Mustang, this one will eventually turn into my track toy.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
BUT in this thread we are not talking about a stock S197 anyway, The OP even wrote his current setup

[Quote : My current setup:

255/45/18 BFG sport comp 2's (front/rear)
2007 OEM GT500 wheels 18x9.5
Ford Racing Struts
Eibach sportline springs
GT500 front brembo's
Rear Tubular control arms (upper and lowers) and aftermarket UCA mount
Adjustable panard bar
Stock front/rear sway bars :Quote]
That car isn't all that far from stock, either. Tires are probably 3rd-level behind MPSS, which in turn isn't an RE71R or Rival S. Ford Racing struts aren't "racing struts", just firmer street stuff. And the Sportlines, while reducing roll slightly, are also front-biased (understeerish) in terms of rate where Ford's OE springs for the S197 have been rear-biased. What the Sportlines would need is a little more rear bar just to get back to the OE handling balance. But not as much more rear bar as straight TLLTD calculations would indicate.


We're probably at the point where the discussion needs to proceed on the basis of slip and slip angles, if the necessary tire and load transfer data was available to do so. But in general, reducing the front LLT% also reduces front slip angles at any given lat-accel . . . or on the flip side allows a slight increase in lat-accel before peak slip angles are reached, the front tires nose over onto the back side of the mu-slip curve, and you risk plowing off the pavement. Not a huge increase, though, and somewhat dependent on how the driver uses the throttle while turning.


Norm
 
Last edited:

RJdude3

Junior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Posts
33
Reaction score
0
That car isn't all that far from stock, either. Tires are probably 3rd-level behind MPSS, which in turn isn't an RE71R or Rival S. Ford Racing struts aren't "racing struts", just firmer street stuff. And the Sportlines, while reducing roll slightly, are also front-biased (understeerish) in terms of rate where Ford's OE springs for the S197 have been rear-biased. What the Sportlines would need is a little more rear bar just to get back to the OE handling balance. But not as much more rear bar as straight TLLTD calculations would indicate.


We're probably at the point where the discussion needs to proceed on the basis of slip and slip angles, if the necessary tire and load transfer data was available to do so. But in general, reducing the front LLT% also reduces front slip angles at any given lat-accel . . . or on the flip side allows a slight increase in lat-accel before peak slip angles are reached, the front tires nose over onto the back side of the mu-slip curve, and you risk plowing off the pavement. Not a huge increase, though, and somewhat dependent on how the driver uses the throttle while turning.


Norm


I was wondering if the pairing of the ford racing struts with sportline springs was going to give me any issues. I honestly got them in separate deals that i couldn't pass up. Is there a prefered spring/strut combo that people like? I know coil overs are the way to go for track use, but I feel like for that amount of money, it could be spent better elsewhere.

I like the idea of the fully adjustable bars such as whitelines with adjustable camber plates. I also like the idea of making adjustments before i go to the track, and then revert back to more of a "street friendly" setup.

This car also has about 126K miles on the stock drivetrain so i know at some point in the somewhat near future i want to find a boneyard motor and get a rebuild going on it.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
A lot of people here like the Bilsteins, but I don't know of any consensus on springs.

Up until the next time I hit the track, I'll have been on Koni yellows and the OE springs (and the Strano 35/22 bars set mid-firm and full firm respectively). I do swap between the track set of wheels/tires and the street set, and I do run the damping settings up for the track time and the miscellaneous street driving associated with that, but that's it as far as chassis adjustments go. Camber hasn't been less negative than about -1.7° the entire time I've had the car, and I just leave it alone. I measured variously between -1.7° and -2° this week following front hub and control arm replacement efforts (measurements varying slightly depending on exactly where in the driveway the car was sitting, how much stuff was in the trunk, which way the car was going, etc.).

It's now on BMR's GT500 Handling Springs (slightly stiffer than GT Handling Springs, with less lowering involved) with a little more rear sta-bar to take some of the "heavy-ness" out of what did feel like more brute grip. No track time on these changes yet, so no hard data.

I ran my first six track days on 255/45-18 Goodyear Asymmetrics on 18x9.5 GT500 wheels, but I have no data other than whatever lap timing I can extract from GoPro videos. The wider MPSS tires I use now (and have datalogs for) might be as much as a second faster in forty, and can still sustain 1.1x in the corners and peak in the 1.3x range when I do my part. This is on an entirely streetable setup that even my wife doesn't mind riding in (too much) as long as I dial the Konis back a bit for the longer rides (possibly relevant side note, we're both in our late 60's).


Norm
 
Last edited:

kerrynzl

forum member
Joined
May 31, 2017
Posts
116
Reaction score
19
Location
Tauranga, New Zealand
+1

I do appreciate the other suggestions but I always balance out how the mods will effect it on a daily basis.

Down the road, maybe when i buy a new Mustang, this one will eventually turn into my track toy.

It wouldn't matter what vehicle you had [Toyota, lotus, mustang] the same laws of physics apply.
Note even the lowly Lotus Cortina in Race trim was street driven.

The facts are: You have a modified vehicle, regardless of how other members here downplay that bit.
Your choices are:
1:Don't put it on the track because in it's present state of setup is unsuitable.
2: Back off the speed so the piss-poor setup doesn't affect the handling
3: Correct the Modifications that are already have, and set it up for what you want to do.

Go back to the people that sold you the spring kit and ask them what the stiffness of that spring kit is [lb/in]
They probably don't know, and just sold it off the shelf.

This is the corner carver section, so when you come on here asking what is wrong ,we will reply!
You are expecting a miracle from some generic street suspension kit that is probably not much better than a stock set-up.

The only redeemable thing about this thread is you were on the track and were driving at the limit of your cars handling, not on the street.
On the street you can never drive at 10 tenths [regardless of what bullshitters tell you]
 

SoundGuyDave

This Space For Rent
Joined
Apr 9, 2007
Posts
1,978
Reaction score
27
I'll admit, I couldn't find the rate specs on the Sportlines, including on Eibach's website... If they are typical of the (lowering spring) genre, they'll be in the high-180's to low 200's and progressive in front, and with the rears running between 20 and 40 lb/in lower than the fronts. For comparison, the MM "Road And Track" spring set are 320-360 up front, and 260-380 rear, both progressive.

IIRC (and I may well be in error, here) I *THINK* the FRPP struts are rebranded Tokico dampers. They're hardly high-end pieces, but are generally sufficient for street use, MAYBE with limited track usage. I had a set of D-specs, and absolutely destroyed one of the struts from corner-loading.

So, down to brass tacks. The OP has taken the car out, driven it hard (and from the video, well), and has identified the greatest problem the S197 exhibits: inherent understeer. Now, the real question becomes how to fix the issue. And yes, the understeer is a "real thing," and that has been well established for a long time...

I'm advocating stiffer springs, a heavier front bar, a dash of camber, and proper dampers to control the springs. MM has a package deal with all of that (including a rod-end PHB) for $1884. Add in a set of camber plates for $280, and you're in business. Total cost is $2200, plus an alignment.

--OR-- the OP can just have fun with what he's got. A lot of folks have the misconception that unless you have $1M in mods thrown at the car, it will summarily explode for no apparent reason the instant it hits the track. That couldn't be further from the truth. Carving corners can be done at a variety of levels, and wherever you may stop or pause, if it's still enjoyable, then it's a win. Yes Kerry and I have "the bug," but you simply don't NEED to have a fully-caged, loud, cantankerous, kidney-destroying machine just to have some fun. A couple of grand worth of basic mods, though, and you can have a pretty quick car that you can drive to and from the track, to work, and to the store without hating life...
 

Latest posts

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top