Dave_W
Cones - not just for ice cream
Cobra Automotive in Wallingford, CT is another source of information on racing/tuning early Mustangs.
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Thats got a 4 link on it...... Cannot compare that to a leaf sprung car that wants to add a watts link. Plus, if you are going to go through the trouble of building something like that, go with a 3 link. Having an adjustable rear RC is a great tuning tool.....Here's a nicely done car, No Watts
Full-Tilt Road-Race Mustang
Harley Padilla’s “baby” is a full-tilt 1965 Mustang built to decimate road courses.www.mustangandfords.com
I can't imagine anyone putting a watts in any car, regardless of the suspension. The point I was trying to make is this guy could've built anything he wanted, he opted out of using a watts.Thats got a 4 link on it...... Cannot compare that to a leaf sprung car that wants to add a watts link. Plus, if you are going to go through the trouble of building something like that, go with a 3 link. Having an adjustable rear RC is a great tuning tool.....
Edit: Ah, very old thread my bad! Crickets in the vintage mustang sub.. HAha!
You lost me there. Why would you not use a watts link ?I can't imagine anyone putting a watts in any car, regardless of the suspension. The point I was trying to make is this guy could've built anything he wanted, he opted out of using a watts.
Essentially, because they are heavy, problematic, and show no improvement over a panhard bar.You lost me there. Why would you not use a watts link ?
That's a triangulated 4 link much liike a fox / sn etc, so no watts link in that config...
Someone feels strongly about this one. Haha .... Well in my opinion a watts is slightly better by design. But yes, slightly heavier ... A watts link with a proper 3 link or TA setup is still far better than a non adjustable 4 link ...Essentially, because they are heavy, problematic, and show no improvement over a panhard bar.
This guy could've built any suspension scheme he wanted, what he didn't want is a watts.
What I see is that a Watts link represents different compromises that aren't necessarily better in an absolute sense. The usual Watts link talking point goes to PHB arc deviation from the vertical, which for most normal amounts of suspension movement gets lost in the noise of lateral tire deformation. Nobody is trying to claim that Ford's PHB setup is perfect - though the S197 Mustang's PHB does tend get close to level with the driver and some amount of passenger/cargo load aboard (very likely Ford's intention).Someone feels strongly about this one. Haha .... Well in my opinion a watts is slightly better by design. But yes, slightly heavier ... A watts link with a proper 3 link or TA setup is still far better than a non adjustable 4 link ...
Problematic? Maybe if it isn't built properly, but I've never had a problem with them .
Someone feels strongly about this one. Haha ...
Based on this thread it is saying there was no adjustment of watts location. So there really should not be any improvement because your roll center is going to be in the same spot. Panhard or watts... Really either setup works just fine if built properly.here you go..
Based on this thread it is saying there was no adjustment of watts location. So there really should not be any improvement because your roll center is going to be in the same spot. Panhard or watts... Really either setup works just fine if built properly.
Not all watts links mount to a bolted diff cover.. Hell, real axles don't have a diff cover
Or you can get 1 inch drop spindles. I have them on mine that keep the upper in the stock location but drops everything an inch. What that does is not bind up the upper ball joint and lets it articulate better.well, if you must have a watts, and I personally think they are a waste of money, then you need to go with the full zuit coil spring deal, which leads to coil overs..which leads to rebuilding them every 20K miles, it's just a pit at that point. I would run an electric power steering rack, and you really really need to lower those upper control arms and weld in those braces for the front.
http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-...-buck-handling-tech-how-to-do-the-shelby-drop.
View attachment 15557
View attachment 15558
View attachment 15559
that right there, with an export brace, will transform that car
the reason has nothing to do with drop, it was a modification on the Gt350R Shelbys that were used for competition, it changes the roll centerOr you can get 1 inch drop spindles. I have them on mine that keep the upper in the stock location but drops everything an inch. What that does is not bind up the upper ball joint and lets it articulate better.
I fully agree it was done for change the roll center. But using 1" drop spindles accomplish the same without binding up the upper ball joint. From my understanding Shelby broke a lot of ball joints while racing and eventually stop doing the drop.the reason has nothing to do with drop, it was a modification on the Gt350R Shelbys that were used for competition, it changes the roll center
What you are missing is the Shelby drop changes the angle of the upper control arm which changes the roll center, the 1" drop spindle only lowers the car, doesn't change the suspension geometry.I fully agree it was done for change the roll center. But using 1" drop spindles accomplish the same without binding up the upper ball joint. From my understanding Shelby broke a lot of ball joints while racing and eventually stop doing the drop.
Doesn't change the geometry - I'm talking camber gain here.What you are missing is the Shelby drop changes the angle of the upper control arm which changes the roll center, the 1" drop spindle only lowers the car, doesn't change the suspension geometry.
I am very familiar with Opentracker. Getting my steering linkage from them. I don't disagree with the benefit of the drop. I was saying the drop spindles do more than drop the car. It provides the same roll control and effect on the wheels and allows the geometry of the front suspension to not be changed. It wasn't the suspension geometry of the shelby drop that was ideal but the effect it had on the wheels. Provide the same effect on the wheels but not bind up the suspension its a double win.What you have read might be somewhat misleading. Cars that were experiencing broken parts had several other factors at play. First, they likely had more than the standard Arning drop. Some up to 1.75”. That’s when the ball joint gets into bind. It also places a tremendous amount of additional stress on the shock tower. Up to 1.5” is good. Actually, between 1.375 and 1.5 is ideal and produces the best camber curve. Second, and likely more important, you can mitigate any possible UCA problems by reinforcing the UCA by boxing it. I would also suggest this on the LCA. I also highly recommend fully rollerized parts for the UCA, LCA, spring perches, and steering idler arm.
If you are not familiar with Opentracker Racing Products, I highly recommend them.