Has anyone used the Global West Negative Roll System??? Want to know if it worth the money or would I get the same performance from urethane bushing. I have used the urethamne bushings on a different and love the handling.
This has been mentioned before on this forum, but it still is not correct. The function of GW's negative roll system isn't to accomodate larger diameter wheels, but rather to provide better handling by creating negative camber while turning, thus improving handling.68GEETEE said:urethane bushings are fine, but the negative roll system as I understand it is to accomodate a larger wheel and tire for the classic mustangs. If you are planning any kind of large wheel upgrade, 16" or larger, you have to have that system for the car to still handle properly. I dont have it cause I still have stock wheels.
DarkBuddha said:It may however be true that if you get the negative roll system, you may indeed need to got with a larger diameter wheel to clear the upper control arm. I am running GW's negative wedge kit on my upper control arms and was able to run a 15" wheel with 4.5" of backspacing.
Here we go again... the original statememt I was responding to was: "...but the negative roll system as I understand it is to accomodate a larger wheel and tire for the classic mustangs.", which I continue to believe is incorrect. As I said, the function on the negative roll system is to improve handling, not to accomodate larger (or wider) wheels as was mentioned. If a side benefit is that it helps to accomodate wider rims (especially those not available in variety of backspacings), all the better, but careful choosing of wheel diameter and backspacing may make that side benefit unimportant (and unnecessary).Randy'65 said:I believe that's backwards. Most 16" wheels are 8" wide, and to make them fit in the wheelwell the backspacing is increased, pushing the inner edge of the rim inboard, closer to the upper arm. Interference between the upper arm and rim may occur when front suspesion is extended. Lowering the upper a-arm mounts changes the angle of the upper arm relative to the lower arm, allowing it to clear the rim. Therefore you need to lower the a-arm mounts to clear the rim. not increase the rim diameter to clear the lowered arm. I haven't really got a clear consensus on whether or not the shelby drop is enough to clear the a-arm, out of a 16" rims way, or if negative wedge drop is required. What width are your rims, Buddha?
bort. said:How sharp are these turns???The all around aspect pf the car is important, I wanna go fast, stop great and handle like my Forumla 350 w/WS6. The first two I have covered, I'm just wondering about the handling b/c I know these old cars are pigs when it comes to that
DarkBuddha said:Here we go again... the original statememt I was responding to was: "...but the negative roll system as I understand it is to accomodate a larger wheel and tire for the classic mustangs.", which I continue to believe is incorrect. As I said, the function on the negative roll system is to improve handling, not to accomodate larger (or wider) wheels as was mentioned. If a side benefit is that it helps to accomodate wider rims (especially those not available in variety of backspacings), all the better, but careful choosing of wheel diameter and backspacing may make that side benefit unimportant (and unnecessary).
Randy'65 said:Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I based my response to posts and articles I have read concerning this,
Oh no no no... I wasn't offended, or even really put-off at all. This discussion has happened before with no real decisive conclusion, and I only meant that we were probably starting that kind of thing again. I'm not a supporter of the other view, but I'm all for an open discussion. And if my tone seemed a bit short, it was because I was in tcb (taking care of business) mode, nothing more.Randy'65 said:Sorry, didn't mean to offend. I based my response to posts and articles I have read concerning this, as well as working out the mechanics of the front suspension to understand their reasonings. Made sense to me. I didn't have Fords engineering drawings to work out every last detail, nor have I personally installed the negative wedge kit or 16 X 8 rims on my Mustang. As I stated in my initial response, Interference between the upper arm and rim MAY occur when front suspesion is EXTENDED (fully). Perhaps you did not have interference problems with your 15 X 8 rims because your suspension did not fully extend, due to stiffer shocks/shorter springs, or perhaps you did not have a problem because your's is a '70, and what I've been basing my thoughts around is the 65/66 models, which seem to have more front end issues. Vintage Wheel Works, a purveyour of 16" rims for our cars does list on their website a need for shelby or global west UCA drop for '65/66 that they don't list for other years, don't know specifically if that is due to tire/fender interference or UCA/rim interference. Perhaps it's worth a call to the experts..
Randy'65 said:One more thing, the issue I had was that you said that you may indeed need to got with a larger diameter wheel to clear the upper control arm. If anything, lowering the suspension mounts will create more room between the UCA and the rim. Sketch it up and see where everything goes.
DarkBuddha said:Oh no no no... I wasn't offended, or even really put-off at all. This discussion has happened before with no real decisive conclusion, and I only meant that we were probably starting that kind of thing again. I'm not a supporter of the other view, but I'm all for an open discussion. And if my tone seemed a bit short, it was because I was in tcb (taking care of business) mode, nothing more.
I will readily admit that my only experience with the negative wedge/roll kit is on my own '70, so I typically talk from that perspective without really considering the context in which others are thinking of it. This is a problem, both mine and others. It is important to include details of the filter through which information is being sifted, and then, hopefully, ascertain the true essence and intent of that information. I do this when I parse info, but rarely when I'm passing it to others... I've got to work on that.
With this in mind, your statements may be correct for earlier model cars. There are several known issues with running any 8" wide wheel on the front of early models, but I wouldn't presume to know much about the specifics.
With regard to...
In my previous post I mentioned that by adding the wedge to the upper ball joint mount, the distance between the upper control arm and the lower control arm is wider, which effectively moves the top of the upper control arm (at the ball joint higher. Consider: the distance between the ball joints is determined by the spindle (this does not change). Then the wedge is placed on top of the upper ball joint, between the ball joint and the upper control arm. This addition spaces the upper control arm up by approximately 3/4", as I recall. This additional 3/4" can place the upper control arm right at the edge of the rim, thus the reason a larger diameter wheel might be necessary. Does that make sense?
Oh, wait, I think I have a pic...
mustangracer said:Wait...everyone is right here....
Ball joint interference is pretty much due to rim size and backspacing, with the stock stampings, sometimes the lip can be a little large and cause some interference.