Looking for Opinions on a Simple V6 Drift Setup

Sky Render

Stig's Retarded Cousin
S197 Team Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2011
Posts
9,463
Reaction score
357
Location
NW of Baltimore, MD
Monotubes, huh? I didn't know Koni made monotubes.

Thanks for the comparison pics. They look substantially different next to each other.

Also, if I already have Koni Yellows on my car, can I just add the GC front coil-over sleeves and rear weight-jackers to make it height adjustable?

EDIT: No, that would make zero sense. The current front struts use the larger, OEM-diameter spring.
 
Last edited:

Whiskey11

SCCA Autoscrosser #23 STU
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Posts
1,644
Reaction score
2
Monotubes, huh? I didn't know Koni made monotubes.

Thanks for the comparison pics. They look substantially different next to each other.

Also, if I already have Koni Yellows on my car, can I just add the GC front coil-over sleeves and rear weight-jackers to make it height adjustable?

EDIT: No, that would make zero sense. The current front struts use the larger, OEM-diameter spring.

Well GC does make coilover sleeves that'd fit off the shelf Koni's but you'll have to use coilover springs and a spring perch for a coilover spring (such as camber plates designed for coilovers with the Koni shaft diamater).

Koni does make monotubes but they are usually pretty expensive.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
I did take Mr. Hidley at his word on his statement that Ford built roll steer into the car. I can't prove it or disprove it, which is why when I posted the comment I started it out with the part that you deleted.

Interesting info Dave posted though about putting it on the alignment machine and testing it. He came up with the same conclusion as you. Good to know.
For front end topics, it's bumpsteer rather than roll steer (which is normally restricted to discussions of solid axles).

About bumpsteer, it is impossible to fully eliminate all of it with any sane steering system design, given that the tierod pivots about the same-side end of the rack and that the knuckle/"spindle" pivots in front view about that side's FVIC (which is located several feet outside the other side of the car). The arcs coincide in at most two suspension positions; everywhere else there is some "error", aka non-zero bumpsteer.

That only a little (tiny?) amount of bumpsteer is generally present is a function of the S197's front end geometry that's pretty good in this respect. Other cars aren't nearly this good (and I used to own one that could have been used as the demonstrator for what to look for when you even think you want to know what "bumpsteer" is).


Norm
 
Last edited:

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
THAT said, when we DO actually notice bumpsteer - it is typically on combos that are lowered substantially, combined with some serious toe-in settings up front.
I would suspect caster changes to have occurred, as this will affect the height at the outer tierod end relative to the balljoint and change the tierod inclination.


Norm
 

Vorshlag-Fair

Official Site Vendor
Official Vendor
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Posts
1,592
Reaction score
107
Location
Dallas, TX
Monotubes, huh? I didn't know Koni made monotubes.

Koni does make a large number of monotube offerings, just nothing for a Mustang outside of Grans Am and such. The Koni 28 series is what all of race shocks Koni builds for things like Grand Am are made from, and they are monotubes. Again - when looking at any shock brand that makes twin tubes and monotubes the higher the quality/performance/cost offerings are always monotubes. A set of Koni 28 series doubles custom for a Mustang race application would likely set you back $6000-7000.

racingdampers.jpg


That said, I don't know of a monotube 22mm strut insert made by Koni. All of the strut kits made by GC, TCKline and others use a single or double adjustable twin tube insert. These are very well known and come in various lengths, and lots of people "home brew" their own coilover kits with this series of inserts. The costs are low and the valving is pre-set by Koni.

800600001g2nms3006a.jpg


The inserts used in the above struts are indeed inverted monotube Koni 28 series inserts. The images of the Cortex struts are very likely twin tube inserts, which cannot ever be inverted, just like everyone else uses. That's an educated guess and I could be wrong... but I don't think I am.
 

sheizasosay

Alive
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Posts
1,024
Reaction score
2
For front end topics, it's bumpsteer rather than roll steer (which is normally restricted to discussions of solid axles).

About bumpsteer, it is impossible to fully eliminate all of it with any sane steering system design, given that the tierod pivots about the same-side end of the rack and that the knuckle/"spindle" pivots in front view about that side's FVIC (which is located several feet outside the other side of the car). The arcs coincide in at most two suspension positions; everywhere else there is some "error", aka non-zero bumpsteer.

That only a little (tiny?) amount of bumpsteer is generally present is a function of the S197's front end geometry that's pretty good in this respect. Other cars aren't nearly this good (and I used to own one that could have been used as the demonstrator for what to look for when you even think you want to know what "bumpsteer" is).


Norm

Just so I am not taking him out of context, I will drop the entire email he sent a long time ago:

We have been quite late getting our S197 products to market. The economy of the last 3-4 years has certainly had an effect on that.
Our website is actually quite up to date. We just do not have a lot of parts available for these cars yet. Another part of this is
that the S197 chassis is so much better than the chassis it replaces, it doesn't need as much fixing.

We are doing testing of parts, but this is never posted on our website. Most of our racing efforts come after the design and testing
portion. The vast majority of our testing is done with instrumented track time. The racing is done afterwards to prove to everyone
else that the testing and design process worked
smile.gif
*

As long as you don't excessively lower the S197 chassis, it works quite well. The FR500S race cars from Ford work quite well with
stock k-members and FCAs. Only the ball joints and bushings are changed. If you go through the car and do the standard replacement
of overly soft bushings, that will improve the precision of the chassis quite a bit. For real track use, the car needs to front and
rear spring rates raised a fair amount. This will minimize the brake dive, acceleration squat and overall body roll. Matching struts
and shocks need to be installed to properly dampen the increased spring rates. C/c plates need to be installed in the front to
provide a proper alignment for performance use.

Raising the FCA inner pickup points will raise the roll center, allowing the car to be lowered for better handling. This requires a
new k-member or X5 ball joints. The k-member is the better solution. The X5 ball joint uses a taller stud to raise the roll center.
The increased stud length reduces its bending strength. I have seen several of these fail in track use. The Fox and SN95 chassis
used a larger ball joint stud. When Ford designed the S197 chassis, they made the ball joint stud smaller diameter, removing all of
the safety factor in it.

Installation of an Eibach R1 kit, will massively help to limit the chassis motions. It comes with springs that are about twice as
stiff as the stock springs. Since it uses standard 2.5" diameter coilover springs, it is very easy to change the spring rate:

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/st...oducts_id=1386

We have c/c plates specifically designed for the above R1 kit here:

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/st...oducts_id=1380

These allow you to precisely adjust in the correct amount of camber for track use and get the caster set the same side to side.

For the rear lower control arms, we have two models available. Given that you have a supercharged engine, I would use the heavier
duty model:

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/st...oducts_id=1318

Installation of these RLCAs will remove most of the axle housing wind up. This will reduce wheel hop considerably and result in
improved precision of the rear suspension and reduced roll steer.

Since you already have a Watts link installed in the rear, all of the side to side gush of the rubber bushed stock PHB should be
gone.

The only other two things I would consider is a bumpsteer kit for the front suspension. This will allow you to remove almost all of
the roll steer that Ford built into the front suspension:

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/st...oducts_id=1236

If you experience wheel hop from a dead stop or want to increase straight line traction more, install a Roush upper control arm kit.
This, along with the MM RLCAs, will eliminate wheel hop and increase forward grip by adding some antisquat to the rear suspension:

http://www.roushperformance.com/part...2005-2010.html

Let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,
Jack Hidley
Maximum Motorsports Tech Support
www.maximummotorsports.com

Norm- Do you think he just mistyped the "roll steer" portion accidentally and meant to type "bumpsteer"?
 
Last edited:

5iv

Homo 3.7 and 4.0 owner
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Posts
583
Reaction score
0
Location
Jonesboro, AR
In for the build and learning. My 09 V6 also suffers from a crazy amount of wheel hop. So bad I can see my dash and interior bouncing up and down. So much I can't even spin tires hardly because it's so harsh. My only time to comfortably do it is in wet conditions.

I'm hoping to build a 05-09 for drift before too long.
 

BMR Tech

Traction Vendor
Official Vendor
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Posts
4,863
Reaction score
11
Location
Tampa, FL
I am very happy to see that he (Hidley) mentioned the increased AS from the Roush UCA System. So many people do not realize that, and end up pairing the Roush UCA System with aftermarket relocation brackets; and wonder why the car doesnt work well.
 

sheizasosay

Alive
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Posts
1,024
Reaction score
2
I am very happy to see that he (Hidley) mentioned the increased AS from the Roush UCA System. So many people do not realize that, and end up pairing the Roush UCA System with aftermarket relocation brackets; and wonder why the car doesnt work well.

I know that you recommend that part aswell in certain applications. In hind- sight, I wish I would have purchased that part and I might have also put a spherical on the diff housing. Leave the rubber bushing on the body.

I think my rubber bushing on the axle is slightly torn from trying to put the appropriate torque spec on that bolt. I'm dreading the hell out of changing that bushing.
 

Norm Peterson

corner barstool sitter
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Posts
3,615
Reaction score
316
Location
RIP - You will be missed
Norm- Do you think he just mistyped the "roll steer" portion accidentally and meant to type "bumpsteer"?
Not really sure, but I suspect it's a function of what level he's accustomed to be working at.

Kinematically - just considering geometric effects - roll steer and bump steer would functionally mean the same thing, because an inch of suspension bump travel is an inch of suspension bump travel regardless of whether it's an inch of "2-wheel bump" on both wheels or an inch of bump travel on the outside wheel due to roll. But once you start to consider compliances and things like mounting bracket deflections under load they do differ because the loads and their directions differ. Which ultimately results in different toe changes for the two situations ("toe" is what all of these 'steer' things actually cause changes in, but that could end up being a whole separate discussion).

For most of us, it's a rather picky distinction that you'd have to maintain if you were working at the OE level or for a fairly well-financed race team, but probably not elsewhere.


Norm
 
Last edited:

BMR Tech

Traction Vendor
Official Vendor
Joined
Dec 15, 2009
Posts
4,863
Reaction score
11
Location
Tampa, FL
I know that you recommend that part aswell in certain applications. In hind- sight, I wish I would have purchased that part and I might have also put a spherical on the diff housing. Leave the rubber bushing on the body.

I think my rubber bushing on the axle is slightly torn from trying to put the appropriate torque spec on that bolt. I'm dreading the hell out of changing that bushing.

I am a fan of the Roush System on a stock height car (w/ no relos) and / or, it "can" work on a lowered car - as long as it doesnt have LCA Relos.

I am also a very big fan of spherical diff bearings.

FWIW, the Roush UCA uses an OEM Style Diff bushing, in the UCA.
 

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top