Panhard bar, worth the money?

[LaserSVT]

I really want my Cobra to handle very well. I have Bilstien shocks, Eibach springs, BBK camber/castor plates, just ordered MM full length sub frames. So I figured panhard was next, I like to fly through the sweeping corners I have around the house and thought it would help to positivly locate the rear axle. So would I be better off getting a panhard bar ($330) MM, or upper and lower rear control arms?
Cant afford both, so I would like some input on which would be better for street driving.
Thanks

 

[tag4car]

strut tower brace lol

 

[LaserSVT]

strut tower brace lol

Its a 96 Cobra, it came with one from the factory lol

 

[EPIK]

IMO the PHB is worth the money...The rear feels much more controlled & solid...

The only issue with the phb is the tailpipe clearance, depending on what catback your running. Only stock, dynomax, & flowmaster tailpipes clear the MM phb

If your gonna change your control arms, only do the lowers if u want it to handle. Aftermarket upper control arms with stiff bushings cause alot of suspension bind in the turns. Only change the uppers if you plan on getting a torque arm or Steeda 5 link.

Honestly, I would get the MM rear lower control arms 1st, then save up for the PHB because the factory lca's are junk & the rubber bushings are sloppy & wear out fast.

 

[san~man]

If you like to drive fast through the twisties, a PHB is a must on a solid axle.

Unfortunately, so are the LCA's. Like Epik said, get the LCA's first (don't do the uppers unless the bushings are shot, if so get the FRPP ones from MM) then do the PHB.

 

[blackfang]

If you are getting a PHB, why get UCA's?

LCA's, PHB and a TA will suffice and actually a better suspension setup.

 

[blacksheep-1]

San man, I respectfully disagree with you on this one, I'm not looking for a flame war, just a conversation.
IMO, the problem with the rears in the GTs is that Ford used the control arms to do 2 jobs, one was to locate the rear under the car, and the other was to locate it side to side, this is, I believe, the reason for the upperarms to be at an angle. What happens is that during up and down movement the upper arms must bind to continue locating the rear. This is manifested in the handling by the car going into a "snap" oversteer, usually on corner exit. The problem seems to get worse when the car is lowered, because the rearend seems to be in this bind mode all the time. Without a doubt, the lower arms are a good investment, the Panhard Bar is a great move, but the job is not over until you address the upper arms. Providing that you can't saw the stock locations out of the car and relocate them parrallel to each other, the next choice would be to fabricate arms that would use a heim joint to allow for movement. (I'm not sure this would even free it up completely) and let the Panhardbar locate the rear side/side. A lot of fabricators sell upper arms but not too many have the arms that are heim jointed, you'd probably need to see MM, Griggs, or some other hard-core race fabricator to find these.
San man, I appreciate your opinions, they're generally dead on and I respect your work on these pages, I just feel that in this case there's more to it.

 

[tag4car]

Its a 96 Cobra, it came with one from the factory lol

oh well, shows what i know about 96 cobras

 

[san~man]

San man, I respectfully disagree with you on this one, I'm not looking for a flame war, just a conversation.
IMO, the problem with the rears in the GTs is that Ford used the control arms to do 2 jobs, one was to locate the rear under the car, and the other was to locate it side to side, this is, I believe, the reason for the upperarms to be at an angle. What happens is that during up and down movement the upper arms must bind to continue locating the rear. This is manifested in the handling by the car going into a "snap" oversteer, usually on corner exit. The problem seems to get worse when the car is lowered, because the rearend seems to be in this bind mode all the time. Without a doubt, the lower arms are a good investment, the Panhard Bar is a great move, but the job is not over until you address the upper arms. Providing that you can't saw the stock locations out of the car and relocate them parrallel to each other, the next choice would be to fabricate arms that would use a heim joint to allow for movement. (I'm not sure this would even free it up completely) and let the Panhardbar locate the rear side/side. A lot of fabricators sell upper arms but not too many have the arms that are heim jointed, you'd probably need to see MM, Griggs, or some other hard-core race fabricator to find these.
San man, I appreciate your opinions, they're generally dead on and I respect your work on these pages, I just feel that in this case there's more to it.

I'm not as knowledgable as say Tom is, but thank you. And of course, no pissing match but rather intelligent (I hope ) conversation and debate.

If you read up on MM's site, they only recommend using the factory UCA's or the FRPP ones.

From MM's site:

"These Ford rear upper control arms are direct replacements for the 1979-2004 Mustang (non-IRS) control arms. They will restore performance lost to old and deteriorating rubber bushings. These control arms have the stiffest rubber bushings available, and are much stiffer than what came originally on the Fox chassis Mustangs. Although Ford Racing Performance Parts claims their bushings to be "twice as stiff" as stock, our testing has shown that while they are much stiffer than Fox chassis bushings, they are identical to the 1994-04 bushings.
We performed extensive testing of rear upper control arm bushing materials during the development of our Panhard Bar. When retaining the original four-link suspension, the best compromise between resistance to suspension bind, best control of axle position, best ride quality, and least potential damage to the chassis, is to retain rubber bushings in the rear upper control arms. This is especially important when adding a Panhard Bar. The compliance of a rubber-bushed upper control arm is required when a Panhard bar is added to the Mustang four-link suspension."

So, MM therefore does not recommend using spherical/heim joints in the UCA, but only rubber. You still need a certain amount of give in the uppers.

I only recommended replacing the upper arms to Orange (the OP) if, and only if, his original bushings were shot. If they are fine, there is no need to change them (MM states that the FRPP bushings are the same as the 99-04 bushings).

As my car sits right now, I would say I have a very, very slight amount of understeer, but nothing that can't be corrected by more steering input or throttle.

I'm currently using:
H&R SS
Bils
MM FLSFC
MM std LCA
OEM UCA
MM PHB

 

[san~man]

If you are getting a PHB, why get UCA's?

LCA's, PHB and a TA will suffice and actually a better suspension setup.

You still need the UCA's until you get the TA. If you only run a PHB, you still need the uppers.

 

[blacksheep-1]

Well, I'm not going to argu with MM, but I have done this car thing sinc eI was 14 (I'm 50) I drag raced, raced english sports cars and autocrossed. ( I did a ton of kart racing and used to have an unlimited license, I even built my own chassis in the karts and the sportscars) for an old fart, I'm still pretty competitive. I had virtually no budget which kind of forced me to figure things out on my own. So that's my "engineering " background. I've always felt that there should be no bind in the suspension what so ever, I also know that this isn't actually possible in real life. In the second paragraph where they confront suspension bind vs control is the key. If you go under your car and visualize what those upper arms are doing and the arcs they have to make, then visualize the arc of the panhard bar, to me, it just doesn't make sense. Those uppers, IMO should be allowed to run either run parrallel to each other, or be able to move around via a Heim. I think, and I'm not putting word in MM's mouth, that the reason they run the soft upper bushings is to allow the panhard bar to work effectively (it forces movement in the bushings) and this is great for 75% of the guys who have mustangs, but when you get into extreme handling situations (autocross and 180 degree single cone turns) it kills you.... at least I think it does.

 

[EPIK]

Well, I'm not going to argu with MM, but I have done this car thing sinc eI was 14 (I'm 50) I drag raced, raced english sports cars and autocrossed. ( I did a ton of kart racing and used to have an unlimited license, I even built my own chassis in the karts and the sportscars) for an old fart, I'm still pretty competitive. I had virtually no budget which kind of forced me to figure things out on my own. So that's my "engineering " background. I've always felt that there should be no bind in the suspension what so ever, I also know that this isn't actually possible in real life. In the second paragraph where they confront suspension bind vs control is the key. If you go under your car and visualize what those upper arms are doing and the arcs they have to make, then visualize the arc of the panhard bar, to me, it just doesn't make sense. Those uppers, IMO should be allowed to run either run parrallel to each other, or be able to move around via a Heim. I think, and I'm not putting word in MM's mouth, that the reason they run the soft upper bushings is to allow the panhard bar to work effectively (it forces movement in the bushings) and this is great for 75% of the guys who have mustangs, but when you get into extreme handling situations (autocross and 180 degree single cone turns) it kills you.... at least I think it does.

I trust what MM says, this is why I am putting in the torque arm instead of aftermarket uca's. The only trustworthy company that uses aftermarket uppers is Steeda & I beleive that there 5 link setup relocates the position of the uca's so that they are parrelel. Maybe u can fabricate some uca's that will work ???

 

[Skud]

In regards to suspension binding and the UCAs.....

The other option is to go with an EVM tri-link. It eliminates the two angled UCAs with a single UCA that is perpendicular with the rear axle. It requires reinforcing the rear-seat area and from what I've read it works, but introduces a lot of NHV..

Riley

 

[san~man]

Well, I'm not going to argu with MM, but I have done this car thing sinc eI was 14 (I'm 50) I drag raced, raced english sports cars and autocrossed. ( I did a ton of kart racing and used to have an unlimited license, I even built my own chassis in the karts and the sportscars) for an old fart, I'm still pretty competitive. I had virtually no budget which kind of forced me to figure things out on my own. So that's my "engineering " background. I've always felt that there should be no bind in the suspension what so ever, I also know that this isn't actually possible in real life. In the second paragraph where they confront suspension bind vs control is the key. If you go under your car and visualize what those upper arms are doing and the arcs they have to make, then visualize the arc of the panhard bar, to me, it just doesn't make sense. Those uppers, IMO should be allowed to run either run parrallel to each other, or be able to move around via a Heim. I think, and I'm not putting word in MM's mouth, that the reason they run the soft upper bushings is to allow the panhard bar to work effectively (it forces movement in the bushings) and this is great for 75% of the guys who have mustangs, but when you get into extreme handling situations (autocross and 180 degree single cone turns) it kills you.... at least I think it does.

You do make sense. I agree that MM and Griggs did have to settle with the double ended rubber bushing to allow some play in the rear. But, I'm also sure that they modeled a double spherical arm and did testing too. In a perfect world, all Mustangs would come with independent rear suspension that would stand up to the same abuse that a solid does. Even if that was so, the Ford independent rear (as it is now) is not much better than a fully built solid rear.

The inherent problem lies with the fact that we drive around on a 40 year old chassis that wasn't designed to handle in the first place. It was designed for "Mom and Pop's" car and made to be smooth and a land boat. One does have to give credit to Griggs and MM in the sense that they're able to design suspension parts for our aging chassis that actually work, and do a pretty damn good job too.

I think if one ran a double ended spherical upper arm, over time the upper mount would rip off due to the added strain of nothing giving in the suspension. If you look at drag racing (I know it's different, but still exerts some of the same forces on the suspension that corner carving does), guys that run solid (poly) bushing upper and lower arms rip apart their torque boxes unless they weld/reinforce them. I'm sure that we'd see the same thing, although not as quickly, if we ran a poly/shperical upper too.

I'm just ranting...I should get the T/A, remove the uppers, and promptly place them in the trash can and be done with it

 

[EPIK]

You do make sense. I agree that MM and Griggs did have to settle with the double ended rubber bushing to allow some play in the rear. But, I'm also sure that they modeled a double spherical arm and did testing too. In a perfect world, all Mustangs would come with independent rear suspension that would stand up to the same abuse that a solid does. Even if that was so, the Ford independent rear (as it is now) is not much better than a fully built solid rear.

The inherent problem lies with the fact that we drive around on a 40 year old chassis that wasn't designed to handle in the first place. It was designed for "Mom and Pop's" car and made to be smooth and a land boat. One does have to give credit to Griggs and MM in the sense that they're able to design suspension parts for our aging chassis that actually work, and do a pretty damn good job too.

I think if one ran a double ended spherical upper arm, over time the upper mount would rip off due to the added strain of nothing giving in the suspension. If you look at drag racing (I know it's different, but still exerts some of the same forces on the suspension that corner carving does), guys that run solid (poly) bushing upper and lower arms rip apart their torque boxes unless they weld/reinforce them. I'm sure that we'd see the same thing, although not as quickly, if we ran a poly/shperical upper too.

I'm just ranting...I should get the T/A, remove the uppers, and promptly place them in the trash can and be done with it

Still waiting for my buddy to have time to help my get my torque arm installed. I hope its worth the $$ & the work....It should be going in 2 weekends from now, along with rear coilovers, if our schedules dont conflict again....

 

[EPIK]

In regards to suspension binding and the UCAs.....

The other option is to go with an EVM tri-link. It eliminates the two angled UCAs with a single UCA that is perpendicular with the rear axle. It requires reinforcing the rear-seat area and from what I've read it works, but introduces a lot of NHV..

Riley

My car defines the phrase " Noise, vibration, & harshness"

 

[blacksheep-1]

I've always hated this picture because it shows how screwed up a stock mustang suspension is, but I kept it to remind me of the same thing, this is with street tires (not even DOT competition tires) and this is about the time the rear end decides to snap around. FWIW, this is running in NASA class "D" where suspension mods are extremely limited, (I placed 3rd overall last year in NASA Tampa Bay)
BTW, the headlight is out for a little cooler air to the KN air box (everyone seems to ask me that)

http://s149.photobucket.com/albums/s52/blacksheep-1/?action=view&current=IMG_0604.jpg

Blacksheep-1 a degree in in white trash engineering

 

[san~man]

Still waiting for my buddy to have time to help my get my torque arm installed. I hope its worth the $$ & the work....It should be going in 2 weekends from now, along with rear coilovers, if our schedules dont conflict again....

Hurry up