don't buy lower control arms with out spherical bearings

[bluelightning]

It has become common practice to replace the stock rubber control arm bushings with solid or two piece polyurethane bushings to resolve the shortcomings of the soft rubber bushings. Hard polyurethane bushings eliminate wheel hop, reduce axle deflection, and improve rear straight line grip. However, the downside of common aftermarket bushings such as delrin, steel, stiffer rubber, solid or two piece polyurethane bushings is they prevent the necessary movement of the control arms during body roll, which in turn produces significant binding in the suspension when the vehicle is cornering. The polyurethane bushings also place unnecessary high stresses on the torque boxes, which are the attachment points for the control arms to the chassis. Standard aftermarket control arms do not allow for rotation of the control arm during cornering because of the stiffness of the bushings.
The INEXPENSIVE solution to suspension bind in 04 and earlier Stangs is to get lower control arms with spherical bearings that allow for articulation of the suspension. that is why anyone who has really pushed a late model Mustang through a corner knows how the car will tend to do what racers call tail wagging.the tail wagging occurs when the suspension binds and then unloads causing unpredictable handling.Granatelli and J&M among others produce lower control arms with the spherical bearings that allow for smooth rotation of the suspension and much better handling.

 

[02nightmaregt]

So does MM and UPR. You'll probably get for granatelli

 

[98stangv8]

So does MM and UPR. You'll probably get for granatelli

I have granatelli u/l and I know people rip on them...but I have had no problems whatsoever with them....once I went through getting the damn things on!

 

[SVT32VDOHC]

I've had steel UCA and LCA's with poly bushings on every Mustang I've owned and they all handled WAAAYY better than stock. They also grip better and have no wheel hop. Maybe you have experienced over torquing of the bolts. They are only supposed to be torqued down to 85-95 ft lbs. I over torque a set before and the car rode like a tank. Stiff as a board, with no movement. I backed the nuts back off and used a torque wrench with a load on the suspension...results were a perfect ride and better stance.

 

[flstang65]

i felt like i was reading an advertisement from a magazine or something.

 

[Stark77]

Well - since I constantly drive on closed road courses at high rates of speed while commuting to work, I guess I should probably remove my granatelli upper & lower (inspected weld spots before install, they look and handle great!) control arms and replace their poly bushings - which are much more comfortable and shock absorbing than metal spherical bushings- so that the next time I take a corner at 115mph I won't be embarrassed by tail wagging. Come on dude - if you're drag racing or even autocrossing (which takes place at low speeds compared to closed track racing) then there's no real benefit to spherical bushings. I say buy what you need - and use it to its fullest extent. And if you're road racing - then get an IRS instead of a live axle with spherical bushings.

 

[trinity_gt]

"The solution to suspension bind in 04" is to abandon the triangulated 4-link system altogether in favor of a torque-arm/panhard bar setup similar to what was done with the S197 (the S197 uses a single UCA that is there only to absorb wind-up and serves no lateral axle-location function so I'll call it a torque arm...)

In the OE 79-04 rear suspension, the end points of the four links all travel in different arcs with differing plans of travel and different radii. They're connected to rigid bodies (the chassis and the axle housing) and so the only way to really get this to work is to make the bushings squishy enough to allow for things to get wrenched and pulled and pushed as these arms move through their respective arcs. The front bushings on the LCAs in the back are so flexible that Ford had to put longitudinal shocks ("quad" shocks) to dampen fore/aft axle movements.

Any modification to this basic setup is really a hack. If you want to get rid of bind and have positive axle location, get rid of the arms swinging in different planes and radii: go with a Panhard bar to center the axle under the car (takes half of what the UCAs are designed for), get a torque arm to deal with axle wind-up (takes the other half of the UCAs job and allows their removal; also removes the torque loads going into the floor causing weld-breakage and mounting bracket tear-away) and then the LCAs can be replaced with parts that have much stiffer bushings. At that point, the now-useless quad shocks can then be heaved as well.

This is the sort of set-up GM put under their F-bodies dating back to the early 1980s. The 79-04 Mustang's 4-link is cheap for Ford and sufficient for daily driver but if you're serious and better axle location is an absolute necessity, don't go half-way; do it right and pitch the 4-link altogether. There are better architectures out there.

 

[bluelightning]

wow sorry i brought it up

Well - since I constantly drive on closed road courses at high rates of speed while commuting to work, I guess I should probably remove my granatelli upper & lower (inspected weld spots before install, they look and handle great!) control arms and replace their poly bushings - which are much more comfortable and shock absorbing than metal spherical bushings- so that the next time I take a corner at 115mph I won't be embarrassed by tail wagging. Come on dude - if you're drag racing or even autocrossing (which takes place at low speeds compared to closed track racing) then there's no real benefit to spherical bushings. I say buy what you need - and use it to its fullest extent. And if you're road racing - then get an IRS instead of a live axle with spherical bushings.

I have lower control arms with the spherical bushings on my 02 Gt and the car feels s o much better when i take hard corners ,just think it is a good idea to have them since they put less stress on your frame and they are not expensive, no need to be rude and really I don't think I would like to see someone like you trying to handle a car past 30 mph anyway .

 

[bluelightning]

good point

"The solution to suspension bind in 04" is to abandon the triangulated 4-link system altogether in favor of a torque-arm/panhard bar setup similar to what was done with the S197 (the S197 uses a single UCA that is there only to absorb wind-up and serves no lateral axle-location function so I'll call it a torque arm...)

In the OE 79-04 rear suspension, the end points of the four links all travel in different arcs with differing plans of travel and different radii. They're connected to rigid bodies (the chassis and the axle housing) and so the only way to really get this to work is to make the bushings squishy enough to allow for things to get wrenched and pulled and pushed as these arms move through their respective arcs. The front bushings on the LCAs in the back are so flexible that Ford had to put longitudinal shocks ("quad" shocks) to dampen fore/aft axle movements.

Any modification to this basic setup is really a hack. If you want to get rid of bind and have positive axle location, get rid of the arms swinging in different planes and radii: go with a Panhard bar to center the axle under the car (takes half of what the UCAs are designed for), get a torque arm to deal with axle wind-up (takes the other half of the UCAs job and allows their removal; also removes the torque loads going into the floor causing weld-breakage and mounting bracket tear-away) and then the LCAs can be replaced with parts that have much stiffer bushings. At that point, the now-useless quad shocks can then be heaved as well.

This is the sort of set-up GM put under their F-bodies dating back to the early 1980s. The 79-04 Mustang's 4-link is cheap for Ford and sufficient for daily driver but if you're serious and better axle location is an absolute necessity, don't go half-way; do it right and pitch the 4-link altogether. There are better architectures out there.

yes i agree but the spherical bushing is a nice way to upgrade your suspension without spending much.

 

[SVT32VDOHC]

i felt like i was reading an advertisement from a magazine or something.

 

[bwahl602]

he was just pointing out the benefits to spherical bushings...

the poly bushigs do a great job at everything they need to. however any 4 link needs the ability to twist during axle articulation. (which occurs during body roll)...
the chassis is built from thin metal, and the brackets and specifically their welds take all of the force transmitted through the control arms when they bind.

its not a bad thought at all... i totally agree with him... they need some room to move, regardless of what you torque them to

 

[Gearbanger 101]

i felt like i was reading an advertisement from a magazine or something.

.....that post has cut & paste written all over it.

 

[2002BLGT]

HOORAY for copy and paste

 

[jprovence]

Watts links FTW, panhard bars are a step in the right direction, but if you really want to keep the axle from moving side to side, you would drop a watts link. Panhard bars move in somewhat of a radius. Watts link only allow movement up and down.

Check this to see what I mean.
http://www.miracerros.com/mustang/t_suspension.htm

 

[trinity_gt]

.....that post has cut & paste written all over it.

Indeed. For example:

http://www.stangnet.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=375

WTF?

 

[bwahl602]

true a panhard bar allows movment in somewhat ofa radius. But the aount of suspension travel is so minimal, i highly doubt its relivant.
I use a panhard bar 3 link on the front of my rock crawling 4x4. 16 inches of travel at each wheel. Even at that travel, the change in axle location is minor.

i really dont think the watts link is worth the extra effort.. just my opinion

the 4 link the car has is great... and4 link systems work great when designed correctly.

 

[jprovence]

true a panhard bar allows movment in somewhat ofa radius. But the aount of suspension travel is so minimal, i highly doubt its relivant.
I use a panhard bar 3 link on the front of my rock crawling 4x4. 16 inches of travel at each wheel. Even at that travel, the change in axle location is minor.

i really dont think the watts link is worth the extra effort.. just my opinion

the 4 link the car has is great... and4 link systems work great when designed correctly.

I think the 4 link works well when the links are parallel to the chassis, not inverted as in our cars. Watts links arn't that much harder to install then a panhard bar. At least the kits I have looked at.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Indeed. For example:

http://www.stangnet.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=375

WTF?

....busted!!!

 

[jprovence]

if anything, the guy inspired discussion...

 

[Stark77]

Yes - but can we change his username to JoeBiden? They both seem to be good at copying and pasting.