Could you please list your aftermarket control arms and if you are satisfied

Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by Marc2, Apr 8, 2004.

  1. Those MM lowers look good. I might go with those and the HD Ford uppers. That looks like a handy tool to remove those axle bushings.
  2. Yeah, I've done them so many times now I bought the tool. It works just as good as it looks like it would :nice:
    I forget who, but there's somebody out there who makes fitted plates to weld onto the stock uppers and/or lowers to box them. If you were going with the stock uppers, it may not be a bad idea. Pretty cheap, just gotta weld 'em in.
  3. I'm not going to read through 4 pages of responses.

    on my car, I used the pro3i arms for the lowers. Got them from partsshopper on stangnet. Great arms. Has the sperhical bushing at the axle end so you don't **** up your torque boxes. Same exact design as the mm units, but less.

    for the uppers I used the 93 cobra uppers, same exact thing as the frpp uppers, but $20 or so cheaper. I know all of this because I bought the pro3i arms and cobra uppers, and my brother bought the mm arms and frpp uppers. the uppers were identical. the mm arms if anything looked a little thicker.

    These arms kick ass. I can now give it a lot of gas around a corener and powerslide under control, not lose it and spin.

    don't believe the hype about being able to lose the quad shocks. If you don't drag race, you won't need them, but if you are in to high rpm launches, you'll still need to run quads, and this is true of any arms. unless of course you go with a torque arm and panhard bar.

  4. 6000rpm launches, no quads needed here....
  5. I just don't understand why it's so hit and miss with that. My buddy swore up and down about not needing them till he started drag racing then needed the quads too....oh well, thats strange.
  6. It's all about having a balanced set-up that in set-up correctly in the car....

    It truly is a science to get a car to hook properly.
  7. based on your avatar, I've got to say you know what you're talking about. Any hints how to "set it up properly"?? this would probably help many of us, as I'm not the only one to put on aftermarket arms and still have bounce. See, I'm running a turbcoupe rear, and I'm really too lazy to redrill to remount the quad shocks. I guess I'll have to unless you have any pointers. I do have way old springs back there and stock sn95 shocks in the back of my fox.
  8. I just found out that as far as front control arms...84-91 Lincoln Continental are skelatal and stronger than our stock arms. They also fit on fox bodies. I checked and they're expensive though. diagram and prices

    I'm fixin to do struts too. What are the other options to upgrade the front control arms? Replace? bushings/ball joints?
  9. I've got the X2C uppers and lowers, adjustable with sphericle bushings. They are very nice quality and fit perfectly. install was effortless.

    On the UPR topic (sorry), That ***** happens every day in every industry. I used to work in the clothing industry and all you had to do to avoid any law suits was to change overall design by 15%, That's nothing!
    Fortunately we have forums such as this where we can get real, inside information about a company and it's practices so that we can make informed decisions about where to spend our money. One can only hope that this type of public forum will somehow influance a company such as UPR to clean up their act in an attempt to establish a loyal customer base (and hope that is something they actually care about).
    I have bought one of their products, but based on this inf I probably will not again :shrug:
    I AM NOT free of hipocricy however, I bought a Typhoon (can you say blatant design rip off?) intake :(
  10. On another forum, I got "eggecatid" on control arms and what works and doesn't. I thought I'd share it in this post. I am quoting a member of that forum, who is quoting another member on that same forum who is quoting a study from Maximum Motorsport on rear control arm design and bind. (if you can follow that you deserve a degree from Haaavuhd.


    Now I'm going to quote a study that an engineer at Maximum Motorsports did some time ago and the post he put on another board as a result. Hopefully it will shed some more light on the issue. I wish they'd done it with the swaybar attached (mroe real world, but wouldn't allow as much isolation of the bushings' contribution to spring rate) and at more than 3 inch bump/droop on one wheel, because folks...that ain't much. Just goes to show how quickly it can become an issue.

    Quote MM Article: While bind is only one of many parameters determining the handling characteristics of a suspension system, it is useful information, and has been a subject of great debate on these message boards. As part of the research we did in developing our rear suspension system, MM has actually done quite a bit of roll-bind testing. I can offer some hard numbers for everyone to consider. I will define ‘bind’ to be any resistance to wheel movement in a roll situation that is not from the spring or sway bar.
    Let me say that this information is not intended to be negative toward any particular system, but should be used to gain understanding of the way cars with different setups feel/handle. This information can help everyone to optimize whatever setup they may have.
    Of the tests we have done, following are the tests relating to the rear suspension systems most often discussed. All tests are with the sway bar disconnected, cycling one wheel through 3” bump/droop as if in a roll situation. The results are organized in order from least bind to the most bind.
    1) 4 Link - LCA with spherical bearings or rod ends at both ends / Stock UCA’s
    6lb/in Linear
    This shows the stock upper arms introduce 6 lb/in of wheel rate.
    2) 4 Link – MM LCA 3 piece poly, spherical bearing / Stock UCAs
    9lb/in Linear
    This shows an additional 3 lb/in resistance from our 3 piece urethane compared to a rod end.
    3) MM Torque Arm/Panhard Bar – LCA with spherical bearings or rod ends at both ends
    10lb/in Linear
    Here we removes the 6lb/in from the UCAs, but adds 10lb/in due to lateral deflection of the TA during roll (see above post).
    4) 4 Link – Stock LCA / Stock UCAs
    11lb/in Linear
    This shows that the stock LCA adds 5 lb/in of wheel rate, which is actually more than our LCA of case 2.
    5) MMTA/PB – MM LCA 3 piece poly, spherical bearing
    13lb/in Linear
    Again illustrating an additional 3lb/in additional resistance of our 3 piece urethane compared to the rod ends in case 3.
    6) 4 Link – LCA with 3 Piece Urethane at both ends / Stock UCAs
    26lb/in Linear
    Case 6 shows that the 3 piece poly (or any LCA) works best with a spherical bearing at one end. 17lb/in is added over case 2. Note that the effect of adding a 3 piece urethane at only one end adds 3lb/in. Add it at BOTH ends and the increase is 17lb/in… NOT 6 lb/in as one might expect.
    7) 4 Link - LCA with delrin, spherical bearing / Stock UCAs
    30lb/in Linear
    This shows that delrin does not allow necessary angular deflection resulting in an additional 21lb/in over case 2.
    8) 4 Link With PB - Stock LCA / Stock UCA
    In the first 1” travel 47lb/in
    Between 2-3” of travel 30lb/in Decreasing Rate
    In case 8 & 9 the Panhard bar defining a new lower roll center is forcing control arms to travel a new path of higher resistance.
    9) 4 Link With PB – MM LCA / Stock UCA
    In the first 1” travel 50lb/in
    Between 2-3” of travel 30lb/in Decreasing Rate
    10) 4 Link – Stock LCA / UCA with rod end at chassis, stock rubber at axle
    In the first 1” travel 63lb/in
    Between 1-2” travel 39lb/in
    Between 2-3” travel 20lb/in Decreasing Rate
    Case 10 represents trying to locate the axle with a stiffer bushing configuration on the upper control arms. Since the upper arms need to have an effective length change, the rod end in this case actually creates MORE bind.
    11) 4 Link – LCA with urethane at both ends / Stock UCA’s
    67lb/in Linear
    Case 11 is similar to case 6, but shows that a standard poly/poly control arm does not allow much angular change. End Quote.

    In other words, quality arms w/one spherical bushing on the lower (axle end) and stock or FRPP HD uppers with rubber bushings is sufficent for both NVH control and reducing bind. The pro3i's sound like a knock off of the MM units from what I've heard here and knockoffs are :bs: in my book.
  11. the Jd's are Granatelli, I just got them and I'm sending them back. Very icky.

    I have my uppers and lowers off right now waiting for the parts to come in. Anyone notice the stock uppers are the most flimsy pieces of metal in the entire world. I think the body sheet metal might be thicker.
  12. The only reason to remove the quad shock is.......A) You have aftermarket control arms and the quad shocks are old and don't work anymore anyways. OR B) You have aftermarket control arms and you need clearance for bigger tires.
  13. Or C) you're running coilovers and they don't clear the quads.
  14. Or C.1) You're running coilovers and don't need the quads.