Vorshlag 2011 Mustang 5.0 GT - track/autocross/street Project

[51ngh]

Terry--I can't remember if we touched on this already in the thread, but you can keep your ABS but permanently disable traction control by installing the 302R/S ABS module. It's about $300. No negative impact on a street car that I found, and on the track it's calibrated better for race tire friction levels. It's just the electronic module, not the entire ABS distribution block. Takes 20 mins to install.

I think the module disables ABS. I called ford racing long time ago and that is what I was told. "Race cars don't need ABS."

 

[SoundGuyDave]

I think the module disables ABS. I called ford racing long time ago and that is what I was told. "Race cars don't need ABS."

Think this through for a minute.... you're saying that installing the Ford Racing ABS control module disables the ABS???? I don't think so.... ;-) That module keeps the ABS active, and at least on the FR500S (05-09) requires the GT500 HCU and master cylinder. Note that the BOSS302R/S, for which the new module is calibrated, have a different booster and master, for the low, low price of $3877. I honestly don't know if there is a difference in the valving of the master, so no idea if replacement is required.

 

[51ngh]

we can all throw out ideas on how it works or you can call ford racing and confirm on how it actually works. When I called ford racing that is what i was told, it turns off ABS.

 

[Whiskey11]

No need to call Ford Racing, PM Rehagen and they can tell you but I am 99.99% sure it doesnt disable it because there is a rather large thread over on the CMC forums bitching at how unfair the Ford Racing ABS module is because of what it will allow before engaging and how it engages and the fact that the unit is indistinguishable from the factory units.

 

[SoundGuyDave]

I'm not even close to 99.99% sure... I drove an FR500S clone, WITH the module, and you're right, the ABS didn't kick in like it normally does at .95G decel. It went to 1.3G before the ABS DID kick in. So color me 100% sure. Once I fix my rear-end woes (long story), I'll be shopping for a GT500 pump and master so that I can take advantage of the "non functioning ABS" mod myself.

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

Got this question from an SCCAforums member...

Hello, I was curious to here your opinion on something considering the headache these upper mounts have caused most people. If you were to ignore, just for a moment, any rules in terms of the racing you do with this car would you ever consider running a Torque Arm setup on the S197 since it eliminates the upper mount? What's your opinion on a Torque Arm setup in general on the S197 for a car that would see some small time events, back road shenanigans on the street and normal day to day driving? This is something I have considered pretty hard lately since I have yet to see a good option to get rid of all the problems with the upper link. I hear NVH can be a bit of a challenge with the Torque Arms transmitting rear pumpkin noise into the cabin but some folks haven't thought it was too bad and others thought it sounded kinda Cool

That's actually a very good question, and one I've had with several SCCA autocross racers, various S197 track enthusiasts, and GM guys. I'm going to post this in my S197 Mustang build thread across all forums, since the "Torque Arm in an S197?" question comes up a lot. And there's a lot of bad information out there, I feel.

Sometimes The Aftermarket Sucks

First, let's look at the aftermarket as a whole, and the actual worth of many of the suspension product offerings. Remember what I have said for years about a lot of the bolt-on doo-dads in the aftermarket: some of the stuff out there is made simply because people will buy it. If it is steel, shiny, fabricated, and looks "neat" it often sells. There are so many bolt-on braces and reinforcements, replacement K-members and feeble control arms out there it is hard to wade through the junk and see the small number of helpful, properly designed, quality made parts that improve something. Some of the "I just replaced X" part" stories are soon followed by "This stupid thing broke!" complaints, but most of it gets enough steel thrown at it that they don't break, just don't do anything to improve the car. I had someone ask yesterday at the shop, "Should I get a better strut tower brace for my 2012 Mustang GT?" And I said "If you want a prettier one, sure, why not... but it won't make your car handle better or go any faster. Having any strut brace is usually just about good insurance for long term chassis rigidity... but the stock one works great". I would wager a guess that 75% of the bolt-on crap made for the S197 is mostly blingy steel, only made to lighten your wallet...



"Well, It Worked in The 1970s"... But So Did Bias Ply Tires

A Torque Arm + Panhard Rod rear suspension was first used by GM on the Chevy "Monza" chassis in 1975-80, adopted it to the Cosworth Vega chassis in 1975 (thanks wikipedia!), then was the basis for the all new 3rd gen Camaro/Firebird (F-body) chassis in 1982, and continued through the 4th gen F-body run all the way until 2002. The picture above is a mid 1980's V8 Camaro built for NASA's CMC class, and was in our shop for custom 3" stainless exhaust fabrication. This car has the stock stamped steel torque arm in place, and it bolts to the rear axle assembly - which was made to hold this. The transmissions in these cars had integral front mounts as well.

What's Good For The F-Body...

There are dozens of tubular or square steel fabricated aftermarket torque arms made for the 3rd/4th gen F-body chassis, some are adjustable (pinion angle), some have a front sliding spherical mount, others are "de-coupled" or even have a spring front mount. Most are made for drag racers but there are a few tailored for track racers, which can work for autocrossing. These are not a bad upgrade on these cars, as the stock stamped steel piece if a bit flimsy when loaded up with lots of braking torque and/or tire grip and/or power.

The TA rear suspension was a novel way to package the "upper" rear control arm of a solid axle car while still leaving good back seat room. The long torque arm, stuffed in the driveshaft tunnel, replaced the traditionally short upper control arm(s) in a 3- or 4-link rear suspension. There are some geometry advantages and some disadvantages to the TA, but for the most part it worked in these factory designed cars because it gave better packaging and good enough handling & acceleration. It hurt braking performance, however, and the F-body's dreaded "axle hop" is traced to the geometry and bushing failures of the factory Torque Arm. Still, it was better than most of the crap used in pony cars in the 1980s-1990s, and I've personally installed aftermarket torque arms (plus panhard rods or watts links) onto many Fox and SN95 chassis Mustangs, with good results.

Torque Arms Fit For Foxes

These Fox/SN95 solid axle Mustangs, based on a 1977 Fairmont rear suspension, are a horribly handling messes with the stock "quadralink" rear suspension. These cars had no secondary lateral axle location, and instead the upper control arms are canted inboard at the top to give some lateral control of the axle. When these 4 upper and lower arms swing through their arcs, though, they bind HORRIBLY. To combat this, Ford kept the rear control arm bushings SUPER soft, which covered up this inherent suspension bind. Then, after they put a decent V8 in these cars (1985), Ford engineers slapped 4 shocks on the rear axle - two vertically mounted, two horizontally mounted - to keep it from axle hopping and flopping around under acceleration, because the control arm bushings were all so soft. Truly a terrible OEM solution in every way. Still, they sold a crapload of these cars, and drag racers and other racers changed the rear LCAs quickly. I've owned and raced and worked on many of these Fox Mustangs, too. If you added stiffer polyurethane bushings to the UCAs on a Fox/SN95, you would eventually rip the control arms and upper mounts arms right out of the chassis. Been there, seen that. These added MASSIVE bind as well. We took the rear springs out of a Fox with poly rear bushings and it not only supported the weight of the car, but you could drive it like that! So much bind.

This meant that getting those upper control arms out of the rear suspension was IMPERATIVE, and naturally Mustang guys looked at the F-body TA solution. For the most part (with some notable exceptions), these 3rd/4th gen F-bodies dominated the Fox/SN95 in autocrossing and road racing for nearly 2 decades, and the factory TA + Panhard rod rear suspension was a large part of that handling advantage. So yes, an aftermarket Torque Arm + lateral link is a great solution for 1982-2004 Mustangs. It can work in drag racing or autocrossing, and SCCA rules makers finally relented and allowed the upper arms to be removed when a Torque Arm was installed. Many, many years after allowing TAs.

Why would you keep the UCAs in place with a newly added TA? Bad class rules. If anyone kept the OEM arms in place AND added a Torque Arm to a Fox/SN95, there was so much rear suspension bind that it made things much worse. Tossing the UCAs away when you installed a TA was normal, but not in SCCA circles. You see, the rules makers often don't understand suspension design or the aftermarket solutions, at all, and after writing rules allowing Torque Arms in SP, they "forgot" to also allow removal of the UCAs. Then when this glaring omission was pointed out, they fought the UCA removal for years. SCCA knows best! So autocrossers with these Fox/SN95 cars that wanted the benefits of a torque arm would have to "keep" the stock upper arms in place, so many replaced the UCA bushings with Nerf football foam. This let the UCArms flop around harmlessly, didn't affect the handling and did not add bind. So the upper arms were just there for show, like on a T-rex. RARR!!! This met the letter of the rules, and the SCCA rules makers finally realized their mistake and updated the rules to allow UCA removal. Many. Years. Later.

A Lot Can Change In 30 Years

Some things never go out of style, but some technologies do become outdated. Brake drums are never used on performance cars anymore, but they were the standard for braking for almost 100 years. Just so, the almighty Torque Arm rear suspension has probably seen its day in the sun. Sure, this was a great aftermarket solution for 23 years of Mustang production, and it also worked well enough for 21 years on the factory F-body chassis. But what about the S197 chassis? The 5th gen Camaro? No, not so much use anymore. Ford found a way on the S197 to package a 3-link and finally added a separate Panhard Bar, and still managed to add high revving 420 hp V8 and kept the price under $29K. They could have used a torque arm, but there are just so many compromises, so they didn't.

But the aftermarket sometimes just keeps doing what it makes money at. Since a lot of what is made and offered for the S197 Mustang is coming from some of the same shops that have been developing parts for the old Fox/SN95 for almost 3 decades, some of them just take the same old solutions and apply them to the newer chassis. This is where I think the mistake lies - in what I call "aftermarket inertia". Dated engineering that doesn't necessarily work well on the latest Mustang chassis is being pushed onto people by some parts makers... that either don't know any better, or just want to make some sales. I say all this with the "In my opinion, your results may vary, blah blah blah" statement at the end.



The new for 2005 Mustang S197 chassis has a pretty decent 3-link/panhard rod rear suspension, that is light years ahead of the Fox/SN95 mess it replaced. This was and is the best handling Pony Car Ford has ever built, and part of why the 2011+ GT and Boss302 is compared in the same breath, and favorably, to $70K BMW M3s by all of the major car magazines. It was the first Mustangs in 2+ decades to not be based on the old 1977 Fairmont suspension technology. Sure, the S197's LCAs and UCA are still chock full of soft rubber bushings to allow for a smooth ride, but the fixes for these are MUCH easier than the Fox/SN95 cars. Just get some good, adjustable length LCAs with better bushings, ignore the UCA, bolt on some LCA relocation brackets, then get proper dampers and springs. Once the car is lowered you need either an adjustable Panhard rod or a Watts Link kit, to control the lateral location and re-center the axle. For 90% of the track/auto-x S197 guys out there, that's a good fit. For the last 10% at the pointy end of the racing grid, add a properly made UCA that has sphericals at both ends. Done.



I think an aftermarket Torque Arm is the wrong suspension solution for the S197 chassis. It could even make the car handle worse than stock, in some instances, possibly... no, very likely adding axle hop under braking. I haven't driven an S197 with a TA yet, so I could be wrong... but I don't think so. I've raced in too many Fox, SN95, 3rd gen and 4th gen F-bodies to believe otherwise. As a suspension designer, I understand the geometry minutiae, the Pros and Cons of a torque arm set-up. I've owned 8 different 3rd or 4th gen F-bodies, 6 Foxes, and worked on many dozens more of them over the past 20 years. So I've witnessed axle hop in these cars first hand, the clanking and banging of the aftermarket TAs, and seen the extremes needed to tame these newly added problems. I've even seen a T56 transmission housings literally EXPLODE at an autocross, after violent axle hop under braking, with the torque arm pounding into the transmission in a 4th gen F-body. BOOM! Gears and fluid and case going everywhere. I have fought with bushings and shocks and tubular Torque Arms on these cars, both my own and customer cars, and know that they make for less than ideal street cars when you "fix" most of the problems. Aftermarket TAs get very noisy, very fast.



So all that being said, I won't recommend a Torque Arm as a good solution for anyone with an S197 Mustang. Except for ONE situation: Serious, ultra-competitive SCCA autocrossers who cannot replace the LCA or use LCA relocation brackets (in ESP and STU class) but otherwise CAN run a torque arm.

Which leads us to where we are now on solid axle rear suspension rules in SCCA Solo. The rules are broken. The solid axle rear suspension rules, as currently written for SP and ST, seem to be penned by people that do not understand suspension design, or the common aftermarket solutions. So we end up where the only way to get the geometry corrected on a lowered S197 is by spending $1000++ adding a janky, last century Torque Arm rear suspension solution to a 21st century car. Again, only on a serious SCCA autocross car built for ESP or STU, that's the only time a Torque Arm on an S197 makes sense. We had even planned on making one for my 2013 GT we were gong to build for ESP, until the SCCA "re-clarified" a rule that made the class less than ideal for us to build around (and kept the rule broken for 2+ years).

For everyone else that autocrosses or tracks their car, not in SCCA's ESP or STU class, don't use this Horse and Buggy solution. That may seem negative towards the SCCA, and harsh to some aftermarket companies, and frankly it is. Because I've had to build cars around SCCA's broken and tortuous rules for 25 years. And I have seen too many useless suspension parts and poor solutions being sold by manufacturers. We go to trade shows and see that roughly 75% of the stuff there is useless CRAP. It frustrates me when I see people waste their time and money on useless crap.

We still design many of our suspension products to meet some SCCA rules, begrudgingly, but it is because some of our customers want that. It drives me nuts when a rule is written so poorly that we have to make something less than ideal to meet it, but they write the rules used by 80% of the autocross clubs in the nation. What do ya do? Until the day that another group supplants the SCCA in autocross attendance and rules making, we're all stuck with their mess of a rulebook.

I write letters to the SEB asking for rules updates and fixes. All. The. Time. It doesn't do much good, but if enough people write in and ask for these common sense updates, over enough years, they.... will.... slow...ly...fix... them. Also, given enough time, many of these old farts die off or leave the sport, and eventually some new blood with a little sense will make it onto these rules boards. I've seen a few bright, upcoming autocrossers make it onto a few committees and rules boards lately, and that is encouraging.

Here's what to ask for, if you are stuck in ESP or STU in an S197 Mustang, and want to see changes:

1. Allow alternate LCAs. Adjustable in length, tubular steel in construction, why not? You're talking under $300 in parts to fix stamped steel, floppy stock arms, all while giving you pinion adjustment.

2. Allow bolt-on, axle-side LCA relocation brackets. This $100 fix is so common and works so well that it hurts me to see them not legal in Solo (we install 2-3 sets of these on S197s per week). These make for significant fixes to rear geometry on virtually ALL solid axle RWD cars that are lowered (other than 1960s-based leaf sprung cars). Allowing these low cost, commonly available-for-every-car-in-ESP brackets that move the pick up points negate the need for $1000+ torque arm "fixes".

Those two allowances are sorely needed, as the current SCCA Solo rules for this area are at least twenty years out of date with the aftermarket and racers.

Before you ask, yes, I know some people will want to know more of the nitty-gritty details. Someone will ask for the geometry breakdown, every pro and cons, somebody else will throw three pages of calculations, another will add some vector graphics, and before you know it this will turn into an internet suspension nerdfest, heh. I think this summarizes the argument quickly: basically everything you do to help forward acceleration by adding a Torque Arm, hurts braking. Just adjusting the squat geometry ($100 LCA brackets) in a lowered S197 helps as much or more as a TA, has no down-sides, doesn't add the clanking and banging that normally comes with an aftermarket TA, and is 1/10th the cost or less. Well, other than the fact that they are not yet legal in some SCCA Solo classes. Also know that a TA is an old 1970s solution that just doesn't necessarily help the 2005-era S197 chassis 3-link rear suspension as much as it did the 1970s opposed 4-links in the Fairmont/Fox/SN95.

Cheers,

 

[Whiskey11]

Terry, I dont disagree with your analysis of Torque Arm suspensions vs an "open" 3 link with relocation brackets but I feel you left out the performance reasons as to why you prefer the 3 link vs a Torque Arm. I get that there is the potential for brake hop but beyond that, in your experience what about the TA setup dont you like that the 3 link cures?

I also look forward to the responses over on Corner Carvers and specifically that of Jack Hidley which I am sure the "inertia" comment was made partially in reference to. It has been my understanding that of the three companies (that are worth a damn, Griggs, Cortex and MM) producing TAs or openly working on them that none have carried over their fox/sn95 units to the S197 and that is part of the reason for the MM units are taking longer aside from the chassis mount change.

Edit: Also, by my count, you were at Nationals last year, clarification on diff covers was made shortly after and is being changed January 1, 2014. Total time is a year and change, not 2+ years, not even close. While I lement your leaving the SCCA the chip on your shoulder is astronomical in size. Irony then that the STAC is looking for members and surely you would qualify as someone a little more clued in on the aftermarket who also has experience and time in the SCCA. You should apply... seriously.

 

[csamsh]

Edit: Also, by my count, you were at Nationals last year, clarification on diff covers was made shortly after and is being changed January 1, 2014. Total time is a year and change, not 2+ years, not even close.

Aug Fastrack says 2015 for implementation of all the new stuff. Have you heard differently?

 

[Vorshlag-Fair]

Edit: Also, by my count, you were at Nationals last year, clarification on diff covers was made shortly after and is being changed January 1, 2014. Total time is a year and change, not 2+ years, not even close. While I lement your leaving the SCCA the chip on your shoulder is astronomical in size. Irony then that the STAC is looking for members and surely you would qualify as someone a little more clued in on the aftermarket who also has experience and time in the SCCA. You should apply... seriously.

Well, then the FasTrack is wrong, because it said "Unless noted otherwise the effective date for all new rule, class, and listing change proposals herein is 1/1/2015". Hence, 2 years. I hope the date they listed in this was a mistake. But nearly every other line I see printed in every FasTrack looks like a typo or a mistake, to me.

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/13-fastrack-aug-solo.pdf - ""

I have applied for the STAC many times. I was told by a former SEB member "You should quit applying - we will make sure you will NEVER be on any National SCCA committee". So... yea, not very encouraging. I've been a steward at National level events, and have been asked numerous times to be part of our SCCA Region's staff, but with running a business 85-100 hours a week + racing 2-4 weekends a month there just isn't much time left for that. My wife and I spent the better part of a decade helping run another autocross club in the 1990s, setting up 100+ of auto-x courses, and it kinda burned me out, too. So I have already put in a lot already.

And we all know you're buddies with MarkA, a new member of the SEB, so you are siding with their rulings a lot. That's fine, you have an "in" there and so they cannot seem to do any wrong by you. That's cool. But they do things "wrong", a lot, and have for decades. The SCCA Solo rules are pretty much a running joke in every other racing organization that has ever heard of them - the size of the rulebook, the lawyering they do to their own rules, the nit-picking of words and even letters, debating removing badges and protests of these weenie like things - it is unique to the SCCA. Don't take my word for it - ask anyone outside of the SCCA who used to be in the SCCA, who has the worst rulebook, and you will get a nearly unanimous answer.

And while I've got a friend or two on some SCCA committees and even the SEB, and I talk with some of those folks on a weekly basis, I still rarely agree with the various boards' direction or consensus. I'm frustrated by a LOT more than a single botched Watts Link "unrestricted mounting" re-clarification, or a lone "unnecessarily lengthy delay" on an obvious rules implementation or fix. There are hundreds of such cases I can list, a few of of which even include graft, criminal activity and legal rulings against a few SCCA board members for their actions, no joke. There are lawsuits against certain folks who steered classes or rules toward using their own private companies as sole suppliers. That just... doesn't happen a lot in other groups. There is some dark history within the SCCA, but most of that is in the past and limited to a few cases. Most of the mistakes I've noted were just people with too limited a field of knowledge, that thought they knew a lot more than they did, or when it concerns their own personal sacred cow car or class. I've only seen 25 years of the the "bang your head against a wall" botched rules, poor rules writing, and missing the "forest for the trees" short sighted rulings, but I know others that have seen more.

Its more than what I write about here. A lot more. Go to a NASA race weekend and ask anyone there... most of them came from the SCCA, but will NEVER go back. And in Club Racing, NASA is killing the SCCA, and the SCCA is freaking out and "trying to fix it". Go to an SCCA National convention, or a Regional board meeting, and listen to what they talk about. These can and should be open meetings, and even members can go and put in their two cents. There isn't some "group bias" against the SCCA, it comes from many decades of bad individual experiences, that often sound an awful lot alike. I am just a bit more vocal about it online, and I don't sugar coat it.

But as negative as I come off on these forums, I do have a LOT of friends that race in the SCCA, volunteer to run SCCA events, and I am a paying member and competitor since the 1980s. I have not "left the SCCA" as you say, but for once I built a car around another club's rules. First time for that, for me. And it paid off, with 6 lap records in a row in NASA's TT3 class. I don't regret this move one bit. The 2013 Mustang GT I bought specifically to build around SCCA's ESP class? It is for sale (at a huge loss) as we scuttled that ESP build when the SEB made their reclarification shenanigans. It looks like the smart move, as the "fix" is stalled until 2015. For. No. Reason.

I love the sport or autocrossing more than words can describe, and send HPDE guys to autocrosses events to learn the necessary skill sets there all the time, but sometimes I really hate how the SCCA does it at the National level. The 45+ years of "rules history" holds them back, and they cannot seem let them keep up with the times. It always seems like they are reacting to changes in the aftermarket that happened 15 years ago.

Again, I haven't "left" - I'm racing SCCA Solo this coming weekend, in support of the "new" STU classing for the S197 (that itself might be stalled until 2015?), and will likely announce for a run heat, and 100s of people will talk to me or hear my voice at that event. Many of them know I have passionate opinions about the upper echelon within the SCCA, but I still keep supporting our region and customers running in SCCA. My business supports our SCCA Region with cash and promotional help, and we have sponsored Divisional and National level events in Texas and elsewhere for several years, with cash. But I'm still the big dirty *sshole to many that only see my online rants, simply for ever implying that anyone in the SCCA isn't perfect, or has their own biases, or lacks adequate knowledge on the rules they write about, or makes stupid rulings and mistakes that chase away members. That's fine - I won't ever make everyone happy. But I'm not going to lead new people into the SCCA without giving them a "just be careful what club's rules you build around" speech first.

Cheers,

 

[Whiskey11]

Well, then the FasTrack is wrong, because it said "Unless noted otherwise the effective date for all new rule, class, and listing change proposals herein is 1/1/2015". Hence, 2 years. I hope the date they listed in this was a mistake. But nearly every other line I see printed in every FasTrack looks like a typo or a mistake, to me.

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/13-fastrack-aug-solo.pdf - ""

I was told by MarkA (I'll get to this comment a little further down) that this implementation would be next year, as in January 1, 2014, not January 1, 2015. I've asked for clarification and I am waiting on said reply but I don't think their intention is to let something so trivial not go into effect until 2015. It will have minimal, if any, impact on the current "cost to play" factor.

I have applied for the STAC many times. I was told by a former SEB member "You should quit applying - we will make sure you will NEVER be on any National SCCA committee". So... yea, not very encouraging. I've been a steward at National level events, and have been asked numerous times to be part of our SCCA Region's staff, but with running a business 85-100 hours a week + racing 2-4 weekends a month there just isn't much time left for that. My wife and I spent the better part of a decade helping run another autocross club in the 1990s, setting up 100+ of auto-x courses, and it kinda burned me out, too. So I have already put in a lot already.

Well that's a damn shame, but if the person was Former SEB member, what's to say the SEB, which has changed, would be willing to entertain your application? You certainly have the local experience, as well as the ST experience to back it up. About the only conflict of interest is the fact that you also own a company that does a lot of parts catering towards the SCCA market. You don't strike me as an unreasonable person so I don't see that is something you can't overcome. Then again, I don't make decisions for anyone but myself and that's probably for the betterment of the SCCA!

And we all know you're buddies with MarkA, a new member of the SEB, so you are siding with their rulings a lot. That's fine, you have an "in" there and so they cannot seem to do any wrong by you. That's cool. But they do things "wrong", a lot, and have for decades. The SCCA Solo rules are pretty much a running joke in every other racing organization that has ever heard of them - the size of the rulebook, the lawyering they do to their own rules, the nit-picking of words and even letters, debating removing badges and protests of these weenie like things - it is unique to the SCCA. Don't take my word for it - ask anyone outside of the SCCA who used to be in the SCCA, who has the worst rulebook, and you will get a nearly unanimous answer.

And while I've got a friend or two on some SCCA committees and even the SEB, and I talk with some of those folks on a weekly basis, I still rarely agree with the various boards' direction or consensus. I'm frustrated by a LOT more than a single botched Watts Link "unrestricted mounting" re-clarification, or a lone "unnecessarily lengthy delay" on an obvious rules implementation or fix. There are hundreds of such cases I can list, a few of of which even include graft, criminal activity and legal rulings against a few SCCA board members for their actions, no joke. There are lawsuits against certain folks who steered classes or rules toward using their own private companies as sole suppliers. That just... doesn't happen a lot in other groups. There is some dark history within the SCCA, but most of that is in the past and limited to a few cases. Most of the mistakes I've noted were just people with too limited a field of knowledge, that thought they knew a lot more than they did, or when it concerns their own personal sacred cow car or class. I've only seen 25 years of the the "bang your head against a wall" botched rules, poor rules writing, and missing the "forest for the trees" short sighted rulings, but I know others that have seen more.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that MarkA and I are "Buddies". Mark approached me when we started the STU letter campaign because I was the only person left on the Sandbox trying to compete in ST in an S197. He asked the same questions Dave did here on S197forums. The conversation evolved into trying to find a solution to what we want while keeping the cars from being buried in STU. We spent probably two days back and forth in PM's trying to find a way to make things better for Mustangs in STX without hurting other cars in the class before the topic switched to a bunch of theoretical "What would ST Pony rules look like?". I didn't hear anything but a "Thanks for your input, this, this this and this wont happen because ESP or because J-Rho's Camaro" and that was basically the end of it.

In the August FasTrack minutes thread on the Sandbox, Mark volunteered some information about when these proposals would take effect and being a member of the SEB, I take his word at face value since it was stated without the "this is my opinion" clause normally prefaced in most SEB public posts. I've since gone back and asked about the STU move and it's time frame as well as clarification on the diff cover change date. I personally feel that the information I've been relaying here through our conversations is at least pertinent to the mindset of the SEB on the matter but beyond that, I don't know Mark personally, never met the guy and probably never will and if he came out today and told me I'm a pig faced snotty bitch, it wouldn't phase me one bit. That is the extent of my "Buddies"ness with MarkA.

Its more than what I write about here. A lot more. Go to a NASA race weekend and ask anyone there... most of them came from the SCCA, but will NEVER go back. And in Club Racing, NASA is killing the SCCA, and the SCCA is freaking out and "trying to fix it". Go to an SCCA National convention, or a Regional board meeting, and listen to what they talk about. These can and should be open meetings, and even members can go and put in their two cents. There isn't some "group bias" against the SCCA, it comes from many decades of bad individual experiences, that often sound an awful lot alike. I am just a bit more vocal about it online, and I don't sugar coat it.

But as negative as I come off on these forums, I do have a LOT of friends that race in the SCCA, volunteer to run SCCA events, and I am a paying member and competitor since the 1980s. I have not "left the SCCA" as you say, but for once I built a car around another club's rules. First time for that, for me. And it paid off, with 6 lap records in a row in NASA's TT3 class. I don't regret this move one bit. The 2013 Mustang GT I bought specifically to build around SCCA's ESP class? It is for sale (at a huge loss) as we scuttled that ESP build when the SEB made their reclarification shenanigans. It looks like the smart move, as the "fix" is stalled until 2015. For. No. Reason.

I love the sport or autocrossing more than words can describe, and send HPDE guys to autocrosses events to learn the necessary skill sets there all the time, but sometimes I really hate how the SCCA does it at the National level. The 45+ years of "rules history" holds them back, and they cannot seem let them keep up with the times. It always seems like they are reacting to changes in the aftermarket that happened 15 years ago.

Again, I haven't "left" - I'm racing SCCA Solo this coming weekend, in support of the "new" STU classing for the S197 (that itself might be stalled until 2015?), and will likely announce for a run heat, and 100s of people will talk to me or hear my voice at that event. Many of them know I have passionate opinions about the upper echelon within the SCCA, but I still keep supporting our region and customers running in SCCA. My business supports our SCCA Region with cash and promotional help, and we have sponsored Divisional and National level events in Texas and elsewhere for several years, with cash. But I'm still the big dirty *sshole to many that only see my online rants, simply for ever implying that anyone in the SCCA isn't perfect, or has their own biases, or lacks adequate knowledge on the rules they write about, or makes stupid rulings and mistakes that chase away members. That's fine - I won't ever make everyone happy. But I'm not going to lead new people into the SCCA without giving them a "just be careful what club's rules you build around" speech first.

Cheers,

That's all fine and dandy but you have to realize that of all the people in the SCCA, you are one of about 4 people who've tried a Mustang on street tires Nationally. I may not be able to read the minds of the STAC and the SEB, but your build threads are all over the internet and no doubt many of these threads find their way to the SEB/STAC and every time you write a post that calls them names, attacks them individually, etc, you lose their willingness to continue to read your letters objectively. All things considered, that hurts our position for these cars in ST more than it helps and we need all the favors we can get. It also makes it harder for us to use the data you have given us when we write in on the same topics.

I get your frustration because I'm right there with you on it and I'm currently living with it. The rules have never fully made sense for live axle cars when it comes to "common" modifications ST falls VERY short for anything with ye-olde-ox-cart live axle suspension so any change we can do, no matter how glacially fast, is better than nothing at all. We have momentum now and I'd like to think anyway that your experience is still valuable to what cause we have.

In case it wasn't clear, my comments are not meant to be accusatory, although I do find some of your comments in relation to my stance on things (See Torque Arm comment: "Before you ask, yes, I know some people will want to know more of the nitty-gritty details. Someone will ask for the geometry breakdown, every pro and cons, somebody else will throw three pages of calculations, another will add some vector graphics, and before you know it this will turn into an internet suspension nerdfest, heh.) to be kinda cute, I don't find it necessary to go out of my way to bad mouth you. I don't bad mouth you at all and have sent a number of people your way for business. It's more or less an expression of my frustration at the current situation. On one hand we got EXACTLY what we asked for, to go to STU, on the otherhand, the bone we were asking for with wider wheels and tires, hasn't been thrown yet so color me frustrated TOO.

Chris

EDIT: I am still interested in hearing your personal experience on Torque Arms... yes, those pesky nitty-gritty details so we can have our suspension nerdfest. What specifically about it didn't you like? I can't even begin to count on one hand the number of CP cars running MM's torque arm on their Fox without brake hop issues and I'm sure the same can be said about other brands too so I'm all ears on to what about it you didn't like since I'm one of THOSE people adding one "For SCIENCE!" or something!

 

[csamsh]

In for the nerdfest

 

[Justin_H]

Add one more STU Mustang - this one a heavy convertible, less prepped than you other guys. Just ordered some of the closeout 285/35-18 RS3s from TireRack. Maybe I'll get rims and run them this year, we'll see. I've already done as many autocrosses this year as I did from 2008-2012, but that's only 3, and they've all been on PZero Neros.

On the 3-link/torque arm discussion, I'm surprised you can't get enough of a geometry fix for the 3-link within the current solid axle allowances. They were basically written for Steeda's Fox Mustang 5-link & Griggs Racing's torque arm, but they do give a number of options for the properly lawyered interpretation. It would require some fabrication for sure.

BTW, did anyone else notice that C5 Corvettes are part of the rules change package for Mustangs in STU? Time to start writing those letters.

Justin

 

[Sky Render]

Mmm, nerdfest...

^^^

Vinny just made it awkward.

 

[csamsh]

Add one more STU Mustang - this one a heavy convertible, less prepped than you other guys. Just ordered some of the closeout 285/35-18 RS3s from TireRack. Maybe I'll get rims and run them this year, we'll see. I've already done as many autocrosses this year as I did from 2008-2012, but that's only 3, and they've all been on PZero Neros.

On the 3-link/torque arm discussion, I'm surprised you can't get enough of a geometry fix for the 3-link within the current solid axle allowances. They were basically written for Steeda's Fox Mustang 5-link & Griggs Racing's torque arm, but they do give a number of options for the properly lawyered interpretation. It would require some fabrication for sure.

BTW, did anyone else notice that C5 Corvettes are part of the rules change package for Mustangs in STU? Time to start writing those letters.

Justin

The geometry fix we can't get is the angle the lower links make with the ground. The brackets are really the key item in all of this.

I just put my closeout RS3's on a set of Vorshlag's D-Forces...nice and light, fit great!

 

[Whiskey11]

The geometry fix we can't get is the angle the lower links make with the ground. The brackets are really the key item in all of this.

I just put my closeout RS3's on a set of Vorshlag's D-Forces...nice and light, fit great!

Two easy ways to get more antisquat, one that involves messing with roll steer (Lower control arm relocation brackets) and the other is by lowering the chassis side of the UCA which as far as I can tell only changes the rate at which pinion angle changes and has a little bit of an effect on how quickly we gain and lose antisquat. Sadly, neither are legal.

The only legal option for the 3 link within the ST/SP ruleset is relocating the axle side of the UCA up higher and I don't think there is enough floor pan space there to do it with and the link would have to be longer than what is currently available.

The torque arm is sadly the only way to get that forward bite back and I do agree with Terry on that point, it's expensive, it's a lot of unsprung weight and the geometry can have disadvantages if not set up correctly.

 

[ArizonaGT]

I think the module disables ABS. I called ford racing long time ago and that is what I was told. "Race cars don't need ABS."

I have the module installed on my car and it absolutely does not disable ABS.

With respect to the pricey $3500 MC, I am told that if you go to a Brembo Pro Kit like the R/S cars have, the brakes will be very "digital" (on/off) with the stock MC. You can switch to the R/S MC/booster etc or I have also been told that the 07-09 GT500 MC/booster is a less pricey alternative.

The module works very well with the stock MC/booster and OEM Brembos.

 

[GT_350]

I'm not even close to 99.99% sure... I drove an FR500S clone, WITH the module, and you're right, the ABS didn't kick in like it normally does at .95G decel. It went to 1.3G before the ABS DID kick in. So color me 100% sure. Once I fix my rear-end woes (long story), I'll be shopping for a GT500 pump and master so that I can take advantage of the "non functioning ABS" mod myself.

I went down this road years ago, for an '05-'10.

All that is "required" is the FR500S ABS Module and HCU. And the ABS does work, also when the car is started the TC is off if you want TC then you push to button to turn it on.

Any of the boosters will work. The GT booster is a constant-gain booster; the FR500S/Cobra have a variable-gain booster; the FR500C has a specific race tuned, low-assist booster that is designed around race pads. While the FR500C booster is the best one for the track, it is expensive and has heavy pedal efforts when used with street brake pads.

We (Ford Racing) didn't use it on the FR500S to keep costs down. I'd stick with what you have; you can always change it later if you feel the need.

----------

Here's the whole thing

I e-mailed Lowell Huston, the Mustang Challenge Technical Manager (PART1)
Jeff Feit/a Ford Engineer reply is at PART 2.

I Have replied back with questions on the HCU and GT500 Boosters and ABS Modules. If you have a question I will forward as soon as I here back from Jeff.

PART1
Mr Huston,

I spoke with you briefly earlier today. I really don't know anything as I'm not an engineer only what I have read......Please forward.

I own a 2006 Mustang GT the car is used primarily at open track events STVOA, HPDE, PBOC etc.

The car is equipped with brake cooling ducts, braided stainless steel brake line (Goodrich), I run Brembo or Motul high temp brake fluid, and has Hawk HP Plus brake pads.

I always bleed the system before events and bed in the pads and rotors when they are replaced.

During my last event I experienced brake fade I believe it was related to the pads because of there temperature rating. I'm planning on using Carbontech XP12 front and XP10s for the rear during the next event.

I want to step up to sticky tires and I believe the stock rotors/calipers are marginal for the way I'm using my car and I'm looking to possibly upgrade the brake system based on your recommendations.

I'm leery of going to the aftermarket because I believe they primarily focus on "bling".

1. Mustang Challenge FR500S brake set up:

Front Brake Kit M-2300-J with two piece rotors, the rear calipers are listed as GT500 parts (RH Rear 7R3Z-2552-A and LH Rear 7R3Z-2553-A) I though they were Mustang GT parts. The rear rotors are listed as Mustang GT parts. They also list the GT500 Master Cylinder (6R3Z-2140-AA) and GT 500 Brake Booster (7R3Z-2005-A) along with a
different ABS Module (M-2353-A).

a. Is the GT500 Master Cylinder/Brake Booster required?
Why does the 2005-2007 Musatng 14" Brake Upgrade kit not have this? I've heard it has less boost ratio than the GT/V6 booster. Will the GT Booster make the brakes grabby, or have too much initial bite?

b. Is the ABS Module this is specific to the FR500S or the GT500? If this is the GT500 module will it work with the GT or will the ECU default to the V6 program?

c. These 4 piston calipers. Right?

d. Also listed are different hubs for the FR500S different/better bearings?

2. Mustang FR500C "Boy Racer" Brake set up:

Front Brake Kit M-2300-A ?two piece rotors?, they list a rotor hat M-1124-R, but not the rotors, is the FR500C Front Brake Caliper Bracket M-2134-R part of the kit? They also list a different Brake Master/Booster Assembly M-2005-R.

a. Over kill for me? Will this even work? Does this kit use a adapter to bolt up to the spindle?

b. Does this require different ABS module/HUC and does this require a different ECU and this would not work be because of the different engines?

3. 14" Brake Upgrade Kit 2005-08 Mustang GT setup:

M-2300-S from the FORD Racing Catalog "Will upgrade the front brakes to 2007-08 SVT Musang 14" rotors and 4-piston calipers". Has one piece rotors.

a. Is the GT500 Master Cylinder/Brake Booster required?
Why not? I've heard it has less boost ratio than the GT/V6 booster.
Will the GT Booster make the brakes grabby, or have too much initial bite? Line pressure problems?

b. Can the M-2300-S be upgraded with two piece rotors?
What is the weight of the Mustang GT one piece, GT500 one piece? I don't really like the idea of adding a lot of extra rotating mass.

Recommendations?


Thanks Doug

PART 2

Hey Doug, answers to your questions:

The stock Mustang GT front calipers and rotors are definitely marginal for track use, and as you add sticky tires it will just make it worse. The pad upgrade is certainly a step in the right direction, but eventually you will need to upgrade the hardware for serious track use.
There are a few choices for upgrades; all the different part numbers can be a little confusing so here's the rundown:

Rear brakes:
This is the easy part. They are (functionally) all the same for V6, GT,GT500, FR500S and FR500C. The GT500 caliper is painted black instead of plated silver like the V6/GT, which explains the different part number, and that happens to be the one that we used on the FR500S.

Front brakes:
The first step up is the M-2300-S (GT500) brakes. This is a 4-piston Brembo caliper on a 1-piece, non-directional rotor. We don't have a 2-piece rotor for this setup. This is a huge step up from the GT brakes, and will work well for what you are currently doing with the car. It's the least expensive route, but it is also the heaviest. It is also the most "street friendly" setup, as the 1-pc, non-slotted rotor is going to work the best when you are not on the track, as far as not eating up pads, making dust, noise, etc.

The next step up is the FR500S/C brakes. It's a bit confusing with all the part numbers; both setups are essentially identical, in that they use the same Brembo 4-piston "F50" caliper and 355mm rotor (2-pc with aluminum hat, slotted, directional vanes). The only major differences between the kits are that the hat and caliper mounting bracket for the
FR500C are manufactured by Multimatic, while the FR500S hat and caliper bracket are manufactured by Brembo, and are less expensive (higher volume parts). There are some other differences between the -A and -J kits; the -J kit has a 4-pc Goodridge brake line set that is a direct-fit onto a production Mustang, while the -A kit has more generic front brake lines that are used on the C and require some bracket modifications. No performance difference. If you were interested in going this route, the -J kit is the way to go. This kit is certainly an upgrade over the -S kit; you get a better caliper that has more pad selection (it's a very common caliper and everyone makes pads for it), and a better rotor (the directional vanes cool better and the 2-pc design is lighter and puts less stress on the rotor when it expands from heat), but it is also more expensive and the replacement parts such as rotors cost more.

For either setup you will need to make sure you have wheels that will fit. The 18x9.5 Cobra wheels will clear either one; there is also a 18x8.5 GT wheel (the "fan blade", not the Bullitt) that will fit over the race brakes but not the GT500 brakes.

Boosters:
Any of the boosters will work. The GT booster is a constant-gain booster; the FR500S/Cobra have a variable-gain booster; the FR500C has a specific race tuned, low-assist booster that is designed around race pads. While the FR500C booster is the best one for the track, it is expensive and has heavy pedal efforts when used with street brake pads.
We didn't use it on the FR500S to keep costs down. I'd stick with what you have; you can always change it later if you feel the need.

ABS:
This is the hard part. The GT ABS module will limit your braking ability, in that it won't allow you to achieve the deceleration rates that the race modules will. Braking won't be worse then your current situation, but you won't be able to take full advantage of the sticky tires. The problem with the race modules is that they won't work well on the street with street pads (but are fantastic on sticky tires!). The GT500 setup is a good compromise, but then you'll lose your traction control. Once I understand a little better how you use the car I can help you decide which parts to use.

Hubs:
The only difference in the FR500S hubs is that we use an ARP 3" wheelstud in place of the stock studs.

The best choice really comes down to what you are doing with the car (is it still a dual-purpose street/track car, or primarily a track car?), and what you want to spend.

For a dual-purpose car, and lower cost, I'd go with:

-M-2300-S GT500 Brake Kit
-GT500 ABS (need the ECU and HCU, and you'll lose traction control)
-Stock GT booster (and after you've driven it decide if you want to make a change from there)

For an all-out track car, at more expense:
-M-2300-J FR500S Brake Kit
-FR500S ABS (requires you to swap to a GT500 HCU, and use the M-2353-A ECU)
-FR500C Booster (optional)

Hope this helps. Let me know a bit more about your car and I can help you decide what is best. I can also point you to a place to get the parts at a good price.

Jeff Feit
Ford Racing Performance Parts
Phone =
email

 

[sheizasosay]

Well....just when I thought the Torque Arm was the second coming of Christ....

 

[Rehagen Racing]

I have the module installed on my car and it absolutely does not disable ABS.

With respect to the pricey $3500 MC, I am told that if you go to a Brembo Pro Kit like the R/S cars have, the brakes will be very "digital" (on/off) with the stock MC. You can switch to the R/S MC/booster etc or I have also been told that the 07-09 GT500 MC/booster is a less pricey alternative.

The module works very well with the stock MC/booster and OEM Brembos.

The BOSS R/S ABS module removes all the computer interference except the ABS. There is no traction control, yaw control, etc. It is only a far more aggressive ABS setup.

If you are looking to upgrade the MC/Booster, the Boss R piece is really nice. It gives you a much more linear pedal. At the higher levels, this is a great way to help drive the car deeper into corners.
Not everyone wants to spend $3500 on a booster/MC though. On the 2011+ cars, in order to convert to the correct GT500 booster (there is one specific part, not all 07-09 are the same), we sell a kit that has everything you need. There are new hard lines to the HCU, a new booster, and a new master cylinder. This is an excellent alternative to the race booster. You get better pedal modulation and feel over the stock unit without breaking the bank.

 

[2013DIBGT]

The torque arm is sadly the only way to get that forward bite back and I do agree with Terry on that point, it's expensive, it's a lot of unsprung weight and the geometry can have disadvantages if not set up correctly.

Hello, I understand the pitfalls mentioned with the Torque Arms weight and possible wheel hop under hard breaking but in terms of cost it doesn't really seem that much more expensive considering the price/time of finding a "good" UCA that doesn't have continuous bushing failures, noisy spherical bearings and large amounts of NVH issues. I saw mention to the 302S UCA mentioned on another forum that costs almost $800. If that's what someone needs to spend to have a proper UCA then I don't think cost can be considered in the debate.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken but from what I have gathered it sounds like the best option to date has been to leave the stock UCA alone and focus on a good LCA with spherical ends at both sides along with a Relo bracket of some flavor. Leaving the stock UCA intact should buffer enough of the NVH associated with a full spherical rod end setup at the LCA mounting points.

Its kinda odd that no one has been able to come up with a bullet proof UCA in this day and age and offer it at a reasonable price.