Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mustang Chit Chat' started by RavenGT, Sep 15, 2020.
EXACTLY!!! A mix and match for sure.
Then again you could just lose 300 lbs by not having your girlfriend come along.
Billy is talking about road course cars/build-ups here. It's different from drag racing in a number of ways.
For road course work you have to look deeper than just 60-foot times, ETs, and overall ratios in 1st gear. At least when you have 6 gears (or more) to play with.
Evidently, Ford revised their MT gearing philosophy when they went to the D4 iteration of the MT82. I'm not at all sure why, but in any event the number of numerically overdrive ratios there might be is mostly irrelevant to road course driving (there might be a tiny power-transfer efficiency matter depending on what any overdrive ratio might specifically be).
The original MT82 gearing looks a lot like that of the close ratio gearboxes of the 1960s, plus a sort-of granny gear 1st to satisfy the dragstrip crowd and a way-tall overdrive ratio to satisfy highway mpg requirements.
The D4 iteration tightens up the spacing from 4th to 6th at the expense of having wider spacing from 1st to 4th. Unless you gear the axle unusually short, you're likely to be wasting the tightness of the upper gears while having to live with wider gear spacing down where you're more likely to be driving.
Actually the 2014 Mustang is more like a T-10 with 4:33 gears for the first 4 gears. Not much different then the 1970 Challenger six pack with 4:10 gears. Although driving I-79 to Erie PA was a bear on 14 inch tires.
That 4.33 (4.30?) was strictly for drag racing . . . but yeah, 1st gear ratios in the mid-twos did need help.
IIRC 3.55 and 3.91 were more normal production fitments.
I ran a few numbers and it looks like BillyJ's suspension tuning isn't a whole lot different from what I ended up with. The balance of TLLTD is within 1% and roll/g looks to be within about 0.2°/g.
I'm using slightly more spring, comparable front bar, slightly less rear bar, less lowering but no so far that any roll center/bumpsteer correction was indicated.
It's a pretty darn good place to be, so this is one time where I'd make the easy recommendation to just follow somebody else's lead instead of piecing your own kit together from multiple sources.
I read the article bout the Roush 3rd Link usage which caught my attention.
Did y'all use this 3rd link w\ the OEM Ford 2-piece driveshaft under racing conditions or went w\ a 1-piece driveshaft design?
Appreciate any info given.
We had a 1-pc aluminum driveshaft in the 302R.
I noticed the Roush 3rd link only fits earlier S197 Mustangs. The don't seem to offer one for the '13 model I have.
Thanks for the response!
The reason why I asked was to see if, assuming that the Boss302R used the std OEM Ford S197 rear LCA hole center lengths, the rear axle pinion angle & instant center was being accounted for w\ this Roush 3rd link design to allow the use of a 1-piece driveshaft design since you have the 1st hand knowledge of this part. If I'm interpreting correctly this piece does take all this into account.....or am I missing something?
The pinion angle\instant center info is the only thing that had me hesitant on getting this part for my Stang as I like everything else about it's design features & the info you've given concerning it's use as I currently have a FRPP 1-piece aluminum driveshaft installed using an adj UCA w\ poly bushing & would entertain the advent of removal of this adj UCA since this Roush 3rd link piece would allow full axle articulation, still control wheel hop & maintain\improve grip, is essentially bulletproof but maintains good NVH manners & don't have to mess w\ poly bushing maintenance or any adjustments thus maintenance free (this last part is highly important w\ me).
The 2005-2010 Roush 3rd link fits 2011-14 cars. That's what's in "Project Budget 400whp S197 Track Car" (which is a 2014). It's just a little shorter in length than the OEM 2011-14.
The 2005-10 Roush 3rd link works great on all 2005-2014 cars with OEM and 1-pc AL (or CF) drive shafts. I've won a lot of pro races with this 3rd link on 2014 BOSS 302Rs.
Pinion angle is the angle of the pinion relative to the driveshaft, which has nothing to do with the instant center of the car, which is determined by the geometry of the 3rd link & lower control arms. They are NOT the same thing or interchangeable since it's possible to change one without affecting the other. There are a lot of misconceptions when it comes to this.
For a car that's driven on the street, it's a no-brainer. I'd just run the Roush 3rd link. Even for racing, in most cases I would still run the Roush link (as explained in the article on the 3rd link).
You can use the shorter early UCA, but you also have to use the early UCA chassis-side bracket.
Might want to use a heavy washer under the fastener that threads into the bracket from the top, as I think the later bracket uses a larger bolt in that position (bigger hole).
Is all the bad press the MT-82 gets warranted? I'm wondering if the issues are people beating the shit out of em and complaining (nothing holds up if it gets beat constantly) or if it fails under normal, spirited street driving. Once my auto dies, I would like to swap a manual in it or buy an 11-14 with the MT. Just thinking out loud at this point in time.
I’m not a trans guru but I do know it uses plastic internals. Not the best material for the driveline.
I will say I love the ratios in the mt82. Paired with 3.73s it makes for a great street car. But that’s just my opinion.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Original MT82 or the later MT82D4?
Original. 3rd and 4th are a little too close but otherwise I like it much better than the gearing in my previous 5 speeds (t45 and tr3650). There’s no need to rev each gear out just to get up to speed and even with 3.73s I don’t have to shift every couple of seconds. I don’t track the car, just some spirited street driving and based on past experience I think the headset is much better than any previous 5 speed I’ve owned.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Regarding the larger bolt hole if using the older bracket on a newer car (2014). Does this mean that there would be the possibility of unwanted movement at that mounting point due to slop in the bolt hole?
I’ve been looking everywhere for the newer 3rd link and can’t find it anywhere.
I highly doubt it. There's still the other two bolts, and FWIW bolted joints like this one resist shear forces (think longitudinal UCA forces here) by friction between the bracket and the sheetmetal. As opposed to direct shear in the bolts, which is what almost everybody assumes is the case. That's part of why there are torque specs for them. If a bolt ever does see direct shear, consider that as being a strictly backup measure (like suspenders plus a belt for your jeans).
My concern was all about the actual area of contact between the bolt head and the sheet metal, and any tendency for the bolt to try to pull through the sheet metal under acceleration loading (rearward UCA force pulls down on this bolt).
Concerning the shear force issue w\ the bolts, I believe that that front alignment lug on the 3rd link mount bracket that the front bolt threads into solves that problem. The bolts essentially just attach the mount to the unibody for all practical purposes thus shouldn't experience any shear forces unless that lug itself shears out of the mount bracket so any shear force applied to the front bolt IMHO should be fairly minimal if at all...the 129 ft\lbs TQ spec on this bolt (quoting spec for 05-10 as this 1 I know off the top of my head) is to ensure that the lug doesn't wallow around inside it's socket in the unibody causing the metal it's welded to in the mount bracket to flex thus fail so in my mind the front bolt thru the lug will experience far more tensile force (which is in the front bolt's favor concerning strength....not TTY) than any shear force (the lug thus bracket itself is bearing the brunt of this load) but the 2 rear mount bracket bolts could experience shear force if the front lug\mount bracket metal fails......which is possible but it will take a hella lot of instantaneous shock loading to reach that point (drag racing comes to mind here)....now here's where using either a heim joint or poly bushings in the UCA\LCA's can make this potential easier to reach (along w\ very sticky tires & excessive pinion rise) w\ the stamped steel 3rd link mount bracket due to too little\no bushing deflection\dampening (this is what Billy is saying causes less grip by excessive tire shock breaking traction earlier than otherwise when accelerating) but normal street\road racing operations shouldn't be an issue. Probably why most aftermarket pieces use 1\4" plate steel w\ gussets to build the UCA mount bracket......
I just can't see any engineer designing this piece to take the kinds of longitudinal forces this UCA could see on bolt shank shear force capability alone......