Well, good bye 2011 5.0

[CPRsm]

I disagree. You want the LCA to be in a downward angle from body to axle housing. Ford sends them out with the LCA level to slightly up. This is better for ride quality but causes the dreaded wheel hop. The body will actually lift over the axle and bounce on the springs under torque. Dropping the LCA allows the weight of the body to actually drive the rearend housing down. This becomes even more important with DRs and slicks. I've followed your treads here and on SVTP. I am by no means trying to school you on the use of LCA relocation brackets, your in the business of go fast goodies. But in my opinion they are useful in the stock aplication as well. With the amount of torque these things make along with a 9.5" wide tire, we need all the support we can to plant this thing's ass.

BJ

No problem man. I never mind some spirited disagreements. There are a few misnomers in your posts though. I think if you read or ask any chassis shop they will tell you the same.
The angle up definitely causes the body separation. Which is a good thing. That is what drives the rear end into the ground and there by the tires. But what really causes the hop is the over extension, and even more so the bushings caving in and bouncing back in the lowers. It's a problem in leaf spring cars also. The front of the leafs wrap up from the pinion rotating up until they can't go any more, and then they unwind and cause wheel hop when the snap back down.
The arm point down only gives the illusion of more weight transfer. Instead of the rear end coming out of the car, it is actually sucking up into it, causing the car to dip in the back. The only guys that really do this are high HP guys trying to get a touch of tire speed before the tires shake. When the rear end goes up in the car, it is taking weight off the tires, and does not really apply weight to the tire until the spring are fully compress and pushing on the rear end again.
By default the angle up causes the hop because it is pushing into a wall that won't move. Pointing down it just kinda rotates without any real action to push forward, so there is no push back, no hop.
Fuck, Seer's been jacked again. I owe him two turbo kits now.

 

[Seer]

No problem man. I never mind some spirited disagreements. There are a few misnomers in your posts though. I think if you read or ask any chassis shop they will tell you the same.
The angle up definitely causes the body separation. Which is a good thing. That is what drives the rear end into the ground and there by the tires. But what really causes the hop is the over extension, and even more so the bushings caving in and bouncing back in the lowers. It's a problem in leaf spring cars also. The front of the leafs wrap up from the pinion rotating up until they can't go any more, and then they unwind and cause wheel hop when the snap back down.
The arm point down only gives the illusion of more weight transfer. Instead of the rear end coming out of the car, it is actually sucking up into it, causing the car to dip in the back. The only guys that really do this are high HP guys trying to get a touch of tire speed before the tires shake. When the rear end goes up in the car, it is taking weight off the tires, and does not really apply weight to the tire until the spring are fully compress and pushing on the rear end again.
By default the angle up causes the hop because it is pushing into a wall that won't move. Pointing down it just kinda rotates without any real action to push forward, so there is no push back, no hop.
Fuck, Seer's been jacked again. I owe him two turbo kits now.

nah you didnt jack this thread. Tech talk is always welcome. Like I said before, I'm not really one for "look at me" posts.

You make some good points, but I have always had luck running relo brackets setting them down at least one setting.

 

[wbt]

You won't need to move the lowers until you lower the car.

I disagree with you completely again. I have first hand experience with this at the track. I can break out the video evidence if needed. That way you can't add words to what I say and everyone can see first hand the difference or we can play this tit for tat you said this but really meant that....

I disagree. You want the LCA to be in a downward angle from body to axle housing. Ford sends them out with the LCA level to slightly up. This is better for ride quality but causes the dreaded wheel hop. The body will actually lift over the axle and bounce on the springs under torque. Dropping the LCA allows the weight of the body to actually drive the rearend housing down. This becomes even more important with DRs and slicks. I've followed your treads here and on SVTP. I am by no means trying to school you on the use of LCA relocation brackets, your in the business of go fast goodies. But in my opinion they are useful in the stock aplication as well. With the amount of torque these things make along with a 9.5" wide tire, we need all the support we can to plant this thing's ass.

BJ

You are exactly right. By moving the LCA rear mount point down, one is changing the instant center of the car (stock ride height). This along with setting the correct pinion angle will plant the tires harder.

 

[CPRsm]

I disagree with you completely again. I have first hand experience with this at the track. I can break out the video evidence if needed. That way you can't add words to what I say and everyone can see first hand the difference or we can play this tit for tat you said this but really meant that....

I meant what I said. Not changing anything. Start a thread, and put up your evidence and I'll put up mine. Lets see who 60's better.
Your car will 60 better with level or pointed slightly up. If it doesn't, it's because the separation is not controlled properly with shocks.

 

[KonaGT]

I meant what I said. Not changing anything. Start a thread, and put up your evidence and I'll put up mine. Lets see who 60's better.
Your car will 60 better with level or pointed slightly up. If it doesn't, it's because the separation is not controlled properly with shocks.

So you are saying you want the body to seperate from the rearend?

 

[CPRsm]

Yes! So can do it too much though. If you do, the shocks or spring max out and you loose traction. Which is probably most guys problem when they get separation. Put on stiff, short springs and you maxed the separation out at only one inch of lift, and then the plant goes away. But we'll see if he starts another thread. I've already paid off Seer twice for jacking his shit, I can't afford to give him anymore

 

[Seer]

Game on in this thread, seriously. This board needs more discussions like this.

I am going to have to say the relo brackets do make a difference as I have not heard of many other people cutting the same 60's I have on a "road course" suspension lol.

KONI STR.T's, Ford K Springs, UMI LCA, UMI Relo Bracket, UMI Panhard Bar, at this time it was running the stock 18x8's with the stock 235/50/18 pirellis up front and a 17x10 black bullit rim with 295/45/17 MT ET Street Radial II's. This was the car's second best 60' of a 1.49, best was a 1.45, only change was, I was then running a 20x9.5 Steeda Ultralite up front with a 275/35/20 Pirelli and a 15x10 Weld RTS with a 295/55/15 MT ET Street Radial in the back.

 

[white05gt]

I know Mattd was cutting some badass 60's without relo brackets

 

[Bigmack2012Gb]

what did you record that with a toaster?

 

[CPRsm]

Game on in this thread, seriously. This board needs more discussions like this.

Was your car lowered Seer ?
That car shits and gets without any antics ! You've got some nice separation there. Thinking out loud,....wonder if more antisquat helps with separation with guys like you. Lowering springs, no stored energy. etc. Usually lower power cars need more separation to plant the tires. As you go up, less anti squat is needed, and less is wanted. It comes up so hard you loose traction. I was having that problem as I went from 7 to 14 psi on the brake. Had it dialed. 8 psi hooked and the front came up and the track started to disappear. It was getting fun lol. Left on 14 and it had too much anti squat for that much power, topped out the shocks, spun, bounced up and down on the rear tires while the wheels were up, and then came back unloading the tires and spinning again.

Here is a DAMN good link. Even explains why having too loose of a front shock for weight transfer can be bad.
http://www.baselinesuspensions.com/info/Launching_A_Drag_Car.htm

I recorded mine with a calculator mwaha !

 

[wbt]

I meant what I said. Not changing anything. Start a thread, and put up your evidence and I'll put up mine. Lets see who 60's better.
Your car will 60 better with level or pointed slightly up. If it doesn't, it's because the separation is not controlled properly with shocks.

Mean it all you like.

Here you go:

Stock suspension, ET Streets:



Car wheel hops and unloads the tires resulting in shitty traction. Also notice how the car squats on every shift. Also not desired and due to stock suspension geometry.

Post suspension upgrades including relo. brackets:



Last video first pass, I bogged the car hence why it dipped back down.

The car was running an 8" rim and just not enough tire so I moved to a 10" rim with a full slick and this resulted:


It's fixed and I will be back out in 2 weeks for more times.

BTW - stock shocks and springs. Suspension changes made were adj. UCA with mount and LCA's with relo. brackets.

 

[CPRsm]

OUCHY on the last vid lol.
So what were the 60's ?
The lowers are pointed up or down now ?
Is your car lowered ?

Your car is still separating. It's not squatting at all. You lowered the anti squat value to ease the shock to the tires. Sticks hit the tires very hard, like high HP cars.
Your first vid shows a horribly uncontrolled rear end. The other vids show the same thing, but a little less because you lessened the AS value. Even if it was all right, you have no shock to control the separation. In the first vid it comes out SO BAD, the tire is rebounding off the track, trying to come back up in the car, but the suspension keeps telling it to go away lol. So you can see it go up and down a few times.

The car squatting during shifting is because you shift like a grandma You are letting the nose come back down, then it has to come back up. Not really the suspensions fault.

 

[wbt]

OUCHY on the last vid lol.
So what were the 60's ?
The lowers are pointed up or down now ?
Is your car lowered ?

Your car is still separating. It's not squatting at all. You lowered the anti squat value to ease the shock to the tires. Sticks hit the tires very hard, like high HP cars.
Your first vid shows a horribly uncontrolled rear end. The other vids show the same thing, but a little less because you lessened the AS value. Even if it was all right, you have no shock to control the separation. In the first vid it comes out SO BAD, the tire is rebounding off the track, trying to come back up in the car, but the suspension keeps telling it to go away lol. So you can see it go up and down a few times.

The car squatting during shifting is because you shift like a grandma You are letting the nose come back down, then it has to come back up. Not really the suspensions fault.

1.6x 60' times.

Control arms are mounted lower in the rear due to relo. brackets.

The shifting was a result of the shitty stock shifter and having issues getting into 3rd. You will note in the 11.63 vid that doesn't happen as I had replaced the stock shifter with the Barton piece with housing bracket. It spins the tires on launch and on every shift down the track.

As you can see, the car behaves much better with the relo. brackets and control arm change. Proof it is working with the revised geometry.

Now that the traction issue is fixed I expect mid to low 1.5 60' times. It was pulling the tires before and I expect that to happen for a longer duration now.

 

[CPRsm]

I thought you were agreeing with Seer. Shit, edit. Actually looking back, you guys are calling the arms down, when they are pointing up. If there is a rake upwards from rear to front, the arms are pointing up. Is this what you mean ?

Fwiw worth I pulled 1.43 on low boost dead hooking nose up. 1.43 on high boost spinning them pretty bad. Before we got the vid I thought it was carrying 50-60 feet because the cars 60 would vary A LOT even though it left great. It would drop when carrying the wheels, probably tripping the lights with the back tires. It would almost change where the tires cam down on the lights depending on how I staged.

 

[wbt]

I thought you were agreeing with Seer. Shit, edit. Actually looking back, you guys are calling the arms down, when they are pointing up. If there is a rake upwards from rear to front, the arms are pointing up. Is this what you mean ?

Fwiw worth I pulled 1.43 on low boost dead hooking nose up. 1.43 on high boost spinning them pretty bad. Before we got the vid I thought it was carrying 50-60 feet because the cars 60 would vary A LOT even though it left great. It would drop when carrying the wheels, probably tripping the lights with the back tires. It would almost change where the tires cam down on the lights depending on how I staged.

Yes. Front mount point higher vs. rear so in your definition pointing up which changes the instant center of the car. I also have my upper mounted in the bottom hole so it is pointing down and run -2* pinion angle as my lowers are rod ended.

As-long-as your ET wasn't drastically off at the 330, 1/8th, 1000 and 1/4, you could take that and reverse analyze to estimate your 60' if you knew the car well enough.

 

[CPRsm]

See I thought you guys were putting the front of the control arm in the dirt. That sucks the rear into the body. You REALLY need a shock in the back. If nothing else get a single adjustable. You're killing thos poor tires. I can tell you were to get a decently priced single adjustable if you want some.

Nah, no calculating. I was making changes too fast. Slicks where going away in one track outing. They went from the squeaking you get when they get warm to not even slowing the engine at all with heat in them. Usually it would drag the engine down for a second, that would spool the turbo and the engine would try head to the moon at the same throttle percent.

 

[wbt]

See I thought you guys were putting the front of the control arm in the dirt. That sucks the rear into the body. You REALLY need a shock in the back. If nothing else get a single adjustable. You're killing thos poor tires. I can tell you were to get a decently priced single adjustable if you want some.

Nah, no calculating. I was making changes too fast. Slicks where going away in one track outing. They went from the squeaking you get when they get warm to not even slowing the engine at all with heat in them. Usually it would drag the engine down for a second, that would spool the turbo and the engine would try head to the moon at the same throttle percent.

Strange has some I am looking at.
http://www.uprproducts.com/strange-mustang-adjustable-shock-05.html

 

[CPRsm]

Dang, I wonder how new those are. They only had doubles when I was looking. I ended up with a calvert shock for now. Would have much rather had that just because of the narrower body. Needed it with all the BS done in the rear of my car.