Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums General Pics and Videos a few pics of my Mustang

Not to flame, but Griggs cars get smoked at most open track events I have been to if a MM car is around. I dont know if you have seen all the Mustang suspension shootouts in every Mustang mag, but MM wins them all. The quality is just not as nice on Griggs components. Most of the welding, and overall quality is just not there on the Griggs stuff.
Do you know Bruce Griggs? I dont work for MM, but have met Bruce and know Chuck from MM pretty good. Im not biased due to who I know, Im biased because I have seen and used both and built alot of stuff myself. All the Norcal guys love Griggs. Griggs actually used to be about one mile from MM in San Luis Obispo. Griggs stuff is cool, just not as good as MM.

Check out a torque arm or panhard system from both, and you tell me what quality is better. I know that Griggs was even using MM caster/camber plates for a while. I dont know what they use now.

By the way at the West Coast Suspension shootout the MM-equipped shop car bested all comers with the fastest lap time of the weekend. The closest competition was a Griggs-equipped race car, over two seconds behind. Smoked the Global west car by 3 and Ips by almost 5 seconds. The proof is in the pudding.. http://www.maximummotorsports.com/wcss.html

I still say Steeda's 5-link is the best rear suspension for a solid axle mustang

btw, that is a good looking 94 GT, though I'm not a big fan of the cowl hoods when they aren't necessary for clearance.

The Steeda system is ok.
If you do not have to abide by any rules like SCCA A-sedan, it is not that good. It still keeps the original quad design in tact, not good. The way to really trick out the rear suspension on a Late model Mustang is to remove the binding upper control arms and going with a torque arm system like Griggs or MM offers. This will almost eliminate all binding caused by the crappy 4 link original set up. This basically turns it into a 3 link system and puts the control arms on the same plane as the 3rd link (torque arm).

Cool, this is hardly a post that one would even consider to be offensive or anything.


Whoa, hold on there. That?s a nice blanket statement, considering the wide variation in power between most track Fox/SN95 Mustangs.



Let?s just stay away from magazine ?shootouts?, since the majority of them are predetermined by sheer advertising $$. After all, that?s the only reason that companies like BBK and Mac get rave reviews on their suspension poo. Not that MM should be even considered near the same category as those craptastic companies, since MM stuff does, after all, work when compared to their BandAid solutions. Regardless, the last time I remember seeing a Griggs car mentioned in a suspension shootout, that vehicle (96-98 Cobra with full GR40, I believe) was suffering from severe overheating issues and didn?t get the chance to lay down the sauce.



Maximum Motorsports PB


Griggs non-adjustable PB




I?m an east coast bastid, so I haven?t had the oppurtinity to converse with any of these guys in person. That said, I?ve dealt with Jack Hidley (or Hibley, as MMFF refers to him as) from MM on a number of occasions, and he is a stand up guy. That said, I have heard nothing but the best about both companies, which makes it feel strange to even be comparing these two companies.



Honestly, I?d have to say both TorqueArms are about equal in design. The Griggs piece uses a single-shear front crossmember mount that I am not overly happy with, while the rear of the MM piece mounts via U-bolts to the axle tubes, which is certainly an ease of access compromise compared to the Griggs setup. As far as the PB goes, (referring to the pics above) notice the bends in the MM bar. Those (compromises) are there to help with exhaust clearance. The Griggs bar was designed with strength in mind, regardless of having an extra inch of exhaust clearance.



That?s correct, Griggs has always used the Fox3 C/C plates from MM in their suspension systems. Why? Because Bruce Griggs said that there wasn?t any point in trying to improve the good design that MM has. However, the initial 3-bolt SN95 plates that MM was shipping was an inherently weak design, due to the coil-over strut load being centered outside of the load triangle that the SN95 strut towers have. The first case of a MM plate bending was actually on a Griggs GR40 equipped car. MM fixed this with their 4-bolt design, which is a quite excellent piece. Griggs, however, designed their own SN95 C/C plate while MM was redesigning theirs, and have been using this design ever since on SN95 vehicles:





The MM shop car also happened to be sporting their prototype K-member, which is more than a year over-due. While they have since changed their design and are now going with a double a-arm setup, you still can?t buy the damn thing. The second place Griggs car, by the way, happened to be powered by a 306ci SBF sporting the infamous ?7-cylinder? option. Take a look at the American Iron series, where MM cars are constantly being crushed by Griggs cars. By the way, feel free to head over to the opentrackchallenge.com message boards, where there?s plenty of MM/Griggs shop and customer cars that will be competing this coming May.

BTW, here's some discussion about the shootout .

That all said, let me say this. Maximum Motorsports is an outstanding company, which has quality products and customer service second to none. However, they (at this time) have yet to release:

*Tubular front control arms
*K-member
*Adjustable panhard bar
*a ?through the floor? subframe kit

Griggs has been around for almost 20 years, and even now most companies are still trying to catch up with their products. I must give props to MM, as while most companies (i.e. Ground Pounders, Grantelli, etc.) simply do half-assed rip offs of Griggs hardware, they actually have taken the time to come up with their own designs, and it shows in how when you talk with them, they actually know how their **** works. As I said before, when it comes to suspensions, Griggs is king. MM is good for the money, and I?d be proud to be running their banner, but when it comes to design and quality, you can?t beat Griggs.

Oh, I guess I?ll say "hi" to Rara, who at this point I?m sure will come along to say something about the Rob Eato-, err, Steeda 5-link, which I?ll admit is a damned fine setup. Just get them to make a kit with a non-adjustable PB and a catback that?ll clear the damn thing

Not that anybody opened a can of worms or anything....

Good comparison Steve, as always.

As far as MM goes, I haven't heard too many complaints myself either, but I'm not as much of a Mustang nut as Steve is. I know people that have the Griggs setup, and although expensive as $hit, it's worth the money for somebody that goes out to Laguna Seca or Sears Point every other weekend.

John

Ok, yes it is, but I think you aren't really clear on what you are talking about.


Well, i watched the A-sedan race at the run-offs, and I am pretty darn sure that the guy that completely walked away from the rest of the pack was running a 5-link, but I could be wrong.


Well, see, you are a bit confsed here. Yes it does maintain a 4-link configuration (apparently steeda considers a Panhard a 5th link) but not like the stock 4 link. You see, the stock setup has a non-parallel upper link setup, and the steeda is a parallel upper link config, no binding.

Binding? umm, no binding w/ the 5-link at all. A torque arm setup has more binding than the 5-link, w/ the dissimilar arm lengths and all (not that it is enough to cause problems, but there is certainly more than w/ the 5-link) Also, w/ a torque arm, you have the possibility of having to back out some brake bias to avoid brake hop under heavy braking, and the 5-link has no problems w/ this



Yes it does. Though a good, true 3-link or parallel 4-link is even better still, the latter of which can be had in a steeda 5-link. That and if your TA breaks at the front mount, you won't catapult the car (the guy who designed the 5-link had this happen to him)

fwiw, I really hold no ill-will towards a TA/PB setup or MM, but griggs is generally viewed as a better choice in the racing community. Though I don't see how much different the two could be

but then, I'm sure Mr. Bassen has voiced his opinion on the two before I have finished this reply


btw, my apologies for messing w/ your post, it was an accident, though I did not remove any of your text or change it in any way.

Err, 5-link? I still think REPUCAPB sounds better

Check out this post for some indepth discussion of the 5-link. Disreguard the dumbass comments from 91BlackGT, he really screwed up a good thread....

Musings of a 5-link

Oh, in reference to what Rara posted:


Don't forget, if you stay true to what Steeda recommends, then you get those POS LCA's with poly front/rear, as opposed to the poly/heims combo MM and Griggs offer. There's some bind for ya

5-link UCA/PB + Griggs/MM LCA's = We're Handling Now

By the way, has anyone told him he has a nice looking car????? I would still take it over my Tour anyday, even if it did not handl quite as well. I would rather back a semi-poor handling Mustang into a corner than man handle my Tour....

lmao, Brian, your Capri will take turns w/ no steering input right now!!!

See, that's why I hav both a Contour SVT and Cobra though the Cobra is way too stock for my taste right now.

You guys both make good points, and everyone will always have their own opinion on Mustang suspension.
The thing is here, you both only took in consideration that I said MM works better. I was not only stating I thought the MM stuff worked better, I was stating overall quality is better( this is a big part of my decision making process when I purchase somthing, Quality!!!!) I belive it probably is with you as well, or at least I hope so. Why would somone spend more on a system that works the same or not as well with lower quality (Griggs)? Box construction compared to tubular? Welds that look like bird S***?

Steve,

you stated:
"As far as the PB goes, (referring to the pics above) notice the bends in the MM bar. Those (compromises) are there to help with exhaust clearance. The Griggs bar was designed with strength in mind, regardless of having an extra inch of exhaust clearance".
When was the last time you have seen or have bent or broke a MM bar your self? Heck when was the last time you bent, broke, or have noticed the flex/stress patterns of any Ph Bar assembly. I have seen a Griggs PH bar fail at the track and many others as well, such as that thing BBK calls a panhard rod. Granted, Im sure this happens to everyone.
When I lived in San Luis, I frequented both of these shops alot, I mean alot. I looked at production of both Griggs and MM product first hand (I know the guys very well from both shops), and if you were in my shoes you would change your thoughts guaranteed. Sorry, but I would rather pay less and get more.

Before anybody says anything about Griggs being in San Luis; I know they moved to Sears Point race way about 4 yrs ago.

Rara,
The Steeda system still mounts in factory points (bad design; it was a bad design on the 79 Fox Chassis Mustang, LTD's, etc and still is). This is still a binding setup no matter what you or Dario Orlando says. Ford even utilized the Griggs tri link set up to eliminate the crappy quad setup they designed on that crazy orange SN95 that John Coletti of Ford specical vehiles built a few years back.


Rara you stated:
"I really hold no ill-will towards a TA/PB setup or MM, but griggs is generally viewed as a better choice in the racing community. Though I don't see how much different the two could be ".
Well if Steeda is better with its 5 link, why is it not viewed as the better choice? Griggs and MM do not use the original quad set up because of 10-15 years of development they have found a better way.
Do you see the new Corvette or Camaro using the quad design? No,its a set up similar to the MM and Griggs set ups (they utilize a similar torque link style arm down the center of the car). You cant really compare Fords quad set up to full out race car Quad link set ups. These are 2 totally different monsters.

The Steeda car did well in A Sedan with there set up? Im not sure if a set up like Steedas is legal in SCCA A-sedan. It changes original mounting points doesn't it? A set up like MM and Griggs is not allowed in A sedan which is found superior. Some a-sedan guys do add a torque link and panhard rod that does not hang below the Diff (A sedan rules). The original quad set up you can not remove legally in A sedan racing. So it makes sense why a system like Steedas did well, (if it is legal) because it is better than the stock set up, but not as good as MM or Griggs.

Sorry guys, I dont want this to turn into a which is better pissing contest. I have driven and raced cars with both of these systems. I say what I say because of experience with the actual product in my hands, on my cars and on the track. I have built and manufactured many components myself and have spoke with Chuck at MM numerous times, and have had this conversation with him.

These are just my opinions and its nice to see info from everyone. It helps to broaden all of our minds towards a product. Conflict of interest is what helps everyone grow in the automotive market.

Steve, you are right on the test not being fair. You cant expect Maximum's 200k mile 91 Lx to be competitive with any of those cars...JK. No really, to be a real showdown they must use the same driver, the same car, and just change out the suspension for each run. Seriously though MMs car is really beat and old.

If every car company thought all cars should be blue, it would be a very boring world.

Oh, and I do like the Black Gt. My mom drives a black lowered 98 Cobra!!!