Like the title says, does anyone have approximate numbers for the suspension travel on 2005+ Mustangs? Just a measurement for full bump and full droop front and rear would be great.
Don't worry about why I might want to know such a thing 
Like the title says, does anyone have approximate numbers for the suspension travel on 2005+ Mustangs? Just a measurement for full bump and full droop front and rear would be great.
Don't worry about why I might want to know such a thing
It might be worth contacting Sam Strano about that one.
That's not a bad idea, I'm sure he has at least ballpark numbers. I like that this chassis is McStrut front, 3 link rear, and everything is steel and therefore easy to box/gusset... although if anyone can name me another rwd chassis with a similarly robust configuration built in the last 15 years I'm all ears.
3rd gen Camaro seems like it should handle plenty of abuse. Steering is with a box, not a rack, SLA front suspension, and rear uses a torque arm and coil springs on a straight axle. The torque arm does use the transmission as the forward rotation point, so there's some improvement possible with aftermarket parts to get the trans out of the equation.
I don't know the amount of suspension travel for these cars, though, but I think... Sam Strano would be a good guy to ask.
In reply to pres589:
I've looked at those previously, SLA front suspension is NOT a plus for my intended use (stage rally), neither is a steering box, and the chassis is super flimsy- when I was looking at them before it was just for rallycross, and even then I had strength concerns with a number of components. A big part of the appeal here would be getting something new enough to have a long lasting and cheap supply of future parts too- the 3rd gens are already on their way up in value, it seems.
Steering box isn't necessarily a bad thing for the Camaro. There's plenty of stronger boxes out there (and the stock ones aren't weak) and you can swap around to change steering effort and ratio as well. Definitely more tuneable than a rack.
In reply to rslifkin:
Sure, and it might be more robust too- but the linkage has more potential failure points than a rack with two tie rods, and steering feel is a big part of keeping yourself out of the trees.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ wrote: In reply to rslifkin: Sure, and it might be more robust too- but the linkage has more potential failure points than a rack with two tie rods, and steering feel is a big part of keeping yourself out of the trees.
Very true. Stock linkage quite possibly wouldn't be good enough, which means more work involved to get the steering to be strong enough and feel good.
In reply to ¯_(ツ)_/¯:
The 3rd gen steering looks a lot like a ZJ Jeep Grand Cherokee to me. I'm not sure why you would suggest that a rack is stronger when heavy trucks seem to use the box setup.
I will agree about the flexi-flyer aspects of the chassis on a 3rd gen Camaro (and I doubt the 4th is much better). That said, home-did subframe connectors exist for a reason, right? Why is SLA not good for stage rally? Again, trucks, they use this. Also agreed on age/"value" issue with 3rd gen Camaro's, but there's always someone cutting their mullet and moving on, right? The sad thing is that you'd probably need to get a V6 car and do an engine swap, and this sounds like more than you're wanting to get into. And I don't blame you if that's the case.
Didn't some people at a certain magazine just pick up a new project car?
In reply to pres589:
Not necessarily stronger, but less failure points- goes for both the steering and SLA vs strut deals. On a strut suspension, you (typically) have 2 bushings, an arm, a ball joint, a top mount, and the strut itself to beef up/maintain/make live [total 6 parts]. SLA you have 4 bushings, 2 arms, 2 ball joints, upper and lower shock mounts, and the shock itself [total 11 parts]. I'm aware that trophy trucks and such get away with bigass control arms and multilink stuff, but they also have more budget- the broke guys are running twin I-beam Rangers, which again have less parts to beef/maintain.
Basically, the successful cars I'm trying to emulate are the Volvo 240 and early rwd Escorts. They had simple suspensions with struts in the front and live axles in the rear- but they're all old as hell (or not even imported here) so what are the options for something new enough to have a long lasting future parts supply?
pres589 wrote: In reply to ¯\_(ツ)_/¯: The 3rd gen steering looks a lot like a ZJ Jeep Grand Cherokee to me. I'm not sure why you would suggest that a rack is stronger when heavy trucks seem to use the box setup.
The linkage layout on the 3rd gen is a little different than the Jeep setup, but the boxes actually interchange (with differences in ratio, torsion bar stiffness and steering stop positions).
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ wrote: . . . so what are the options for something new enough to have a long lasting future parts supply?
Is Miata the Answer here? Definately going to have parts options and availability for Many more years to come.
Any have you considered the ranger twin beam chassis? etc. for rally build. (I know it's a truck) maybe you have to stay with car, not truck.
In reply to IndyJoe:
Convertibles are not legal for certain sanctioning bodies, even with hardtop, and the Miata is pretty tight interior wise for a rally car (two people have to live in this thing with their helmets for two days straight).
A truck could be an option, but they're hard to do a legal cage in, not to mention the atrocious weight distribution (and weight in general). Very worried about weight on the S197 too, now that you mention it.
I know nothing about them but hey, has the Infiniti G35/Nissan 350Z been considered? RWD.
In reply to IndyJoe:
Those and the RX8 have both been considered. Complicated suspensions with too many aluminum bits scare me, and there is serious difficulty getting 15" wheels on them (the knuckles may be too tall, whereas 15s fit on the back of the Mustang and the brakes are the limiting factor up front).
I was offered a free RX8 to start prepping for rally and still said no.
I see you've already said no, but just to be clear you really REALLY don't want to do an RX8.
How does classing work? Is RWD-izing the known quantity Impreza a feasible choice?
You can convert a 4wd car to 2wd, but not a fwd to rwd. The rwd Impreza thing has been done, but they're slow (weight distribution) and the rear diff isn't meant to put down 100% of the power.
No idea about total travel, I've never measured mine. I do know with stock height springs they have an appreciable tire-fender gap, which is probably a plus. Also, the front ball joints are made of material approximately the same strength as well chilled butter, so plan on beefier ones or frequent changes if you really beat on it. Mine barely made it to 100k on good southern roads.
E36s almost get into your ballpark, including the 318ti with its flickable wheelbase and super simple semi-trailing arm rear suspension...
2011 (maybe 2010?) Mustangs had larger balljoints. GT500 arms are a drop in upgrade that use them, plus are stronger. the LCA's carry a lot of load on the S197.
No idea about total travel, mine is lowered and I never saw the stock parts.
In reply to gearheadE30:
I actually have a 318ti- the main advantage it has over my RX7 is interior space, but it would be considerably cheaper for me to prep another RX7 if going the "older sportscar" route.
You'll need to log in to post.
