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).
Actually, the factory system does quite well for its intended usage (which is obviously not competition) but what is wrong with the mounting points? Sure a non-parallel upper arm design is bad for maximum performance, but what does that have to do w/ the mounts?
This is still a binding setup no matter what you or Dario Orlando says.
Why? because you get to redefine kinematics? what are you gonna call it? Reactive Kinematics? The problem is, is that the fact that it doesn't bind any more (probably less than most TA's) than a TA, has nothing to do with what I say, but with the suspension geometry.
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.
Ok, I got a few issues w/ this one.
1. The Steeda 5-link was not designed or available at the time the "10L Boss" was put together.
2. It is a
modified Griggs TA that was used. (not a MM, hmmm :D)
3. I am well aware of the car in question, I walk by it at least 6 times a day at work.
4. The Steeda 5-link was in fact designed by two current Ford chassis engineers (one predominantly, but I know both of them) and the design was sold to Steeda. This is the source of Mr. Bassen's "REPUCAPB" comments.
5. The "10L Boss" was never intended to be a real road race car, but a drag strip concentrated machine, hence the strong leaning to drag racing setup on the suspension.
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.
The Steeda setup is pretty new on the scene, but is gaining ground fast. Thanks in part to all those folks who *legally* do very well in American Sedan in the SCCA.
I still think you have some real confusion about what the Steeda setup does to the rear suspension geometry. You see the stock geometry is non-parallel, and is therefore designed to bind as suspension travle increases;
BUT the steeda setup, has PARALLEL upper control arms (the key point of the whole system) which have NO bind in them whatsoever, even under full jounce and full rebound. Griggs and MM have found an adequate solution to the problem, but not ideal, and certainly no better than steeda's, IMHO.
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).
Umm, ok. yes Camaro does use a TA setup, big deal, Camaro is in its final year of production (I hope it comes back). But the Corvette comment put you right on front seat of the short bus, and I won't even dignify it with the explanation of the independant rear suspension of the C5 Corvette.
You cant really compare Fords quad set up to full out race car Quad link set ups. These are 2 totally different monsters.
Exactly!!! Maybe you should listen to your own advice. The Steeda 5-link changes the stock Mustang suspensio geometry in the single most significant way possible, and still retain the 4-link configuration. The steeda setup is far more like a "full race" 4-link than the stock geometry.
svtfan, please go back and read the thread Steve linked over at corner-carvers.com it should explain a whole lot to you (you obviously didn't read any of it) it will also explain why all three, the griggs, MM and Steeda setups, are all legal for American Sedan.
davidavid,
The car really looks pretty good. though, you may want to work on your drag racing technique a bit, 14.9 seems a bit slow for what you have done, unless there is some extenuating circumstance I am unaware of. good luck! btw, why all the Cobra badging on your GT? don't you get crap from people for it?
oh, and one last thing for svtfan,
it sounds like you have a pretty cool Mom, I am VERY partial to Cobras
and not just because I own one
