Y No Cambered Mustangs??
- Thread starter forzalife
- Start date
Well, first of all, most mustangs have a solid rear axle, and the most camber you can get out of it before the axles bind in the diff is maybe a degree or so. I don't know what the camber limits of the IRS are. As for the fronts, it's possible to get 3.5 degrees of camber or more without any major modifications, maybe even more if you run longer control arms. Much more than that and you run out of room to move the strut inboard in the strut tower so you'd have to modify/relocate the strut tower, or go to a double-A-arm front end. But anybody who did an SLA just to get ricockulous amounts of camber instead of the benefits it offers would be a slope-headed moron.
jlangholzj
Mustang Master
w0t.......
I just......wow.....
There's a point between function and form. I have no problem with the air-ride guys that drop their car on the ground when its parked because a majority of them have it at a reasonable level when they're driving. Different strokes for different folks but there's a point where too much of anything becomes retarded. Doesn't have to be "stance" to be retarded, its like having a 1000hp car that just putts around the block and never hits the strip. Sorry about your penis.....
Ok but again, same answer. If it's possible, they haven't done it because they're not stance douchebags, and probably because stance douchebags are too busy driving under powered import junk.
I'd be willing to bet theres more than a few of those here on stangnet and i'd rather be putt putting around the block in them than a cambered out slammed to the ground dousche canoe
now why would anyone who owns a real car, like a mustang, camaro, firebird, or any other american manufacturers vehicle want to do something so stupid as build a car that has a huge amount of negative camber? it look stupid. back in the day when slammed mini trucks were all the rage, they were able to get them down on the ground without the massively stupid negative camber look.
The question I asked above was a simple one. To determine if there was some performance aspect he was after or if maybe he only had hats that fit on backwards and pants that didn't fit. 
So again I ask: What is the point in doing such a thing?
So again I ask: What is the point in doing such a thing?
The question I asked above was a simple one. To determine if there was some performance aspect he was after or if maybe he only had hats that fit on backwards and pants that didn't fit.
So again I ask: What is the point in doing such a thing?
the pants dont fit right, and the hat is on sideways, almost backwards. its a stupid look that does nothing but degrade performance wear tires out faster, and prove to the world that the owner of the car is a douche bag that needs some chlorine poured into his swimming pool.
jlangholzj
Mustang Master
Oh i'm sure there is too. I think they're equally as mo-tarded too. don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the stance nation bros here but like power, camber has its place. Granted much over 3-4* of camber is overkill and just compensating for poor suspension OR it's for the "hella flush" look. There's no reason for a 4-link...hell even a leaf style solid axle to need camber. Yes you get benefits out of running negative camber in a IRS but even my '14 WRX only has ~0.5* or so in the rear. The most I've ever run IN A RACECAR in the rear is ~2*.
build it for a reason.
1/4 mile? loosen the front up, POWAH and some sticky tires. If you want to put street tires on it and daily drive it, AWESOME. But actually take it to the strip.
track car? less power, LOTS OF SUSPENSION. Too low is a bad thing. Again, don't put your damn wing on it and never take it to the track.
both of those are simply RICE
Race
Inspired
Cosmetic
Enhancements
whether that's a 900HP 'vette or a stanced out civic....they're both equally rice in my book. Sorry to hurt your asses but it's true.
Because there's no reason on god's green earth that you'll just HAVE to have over 450 HP for driving to church on sunday.
Don't know why I was pulled into this crap soup. I use my real name to troll. I roll hard core like that. Whatever! I do what I want!
Sadly as much as KT is teh suck I have to agree with him on this. It looks stupid and hurts everything. Breaings, brakes, wheel studs, shocks, wheels and did I mention it looks stupid.
As to the original question, it was asked and answered. Why do you not see it on Mustangs?
1. You cant.
2. Even if you could, Mustang owners are a different kind of douche and do not tolerate such things.
Thing is the cars that do have it done could be lower if they just used the right offset wheels in proper sizes. An Integra was never designed to have a 3" lip on its wheels plus slapping a 235 series tire on a 10" wide wheel is beyond stupid.
From a business perspective I wont even work on cars like that and have turned three away that needed bearings or brakes because the work is for naught and it leaves me open to liability for sending a car out riding on 1" of its tread.
Sadly as much as KT is teh suck I have to agree with him on this. It looks stupid and hurts everything. Breaings, brakes, wheel studs, shocks, wheels and did I mention it looks stupid.
As to the original question, it was asked and answered. Why do you not see it on Mustangs?
1. You cant.
2. Even if you could, Mustang owners are a different kind of douche and do not tolerate such things.
Thing is the cars that do have it done could be lower if they just used the right offset wheels in proper sizes. An Integra was never designed to have a 3" lip on its wheels plus slapping a 235 series tire on a 10" wide wheel is beyond stupid.
From a business perspective I wont even work on cars like that and have turned three away that needed bearings or brakes because the work is for naught and it leaves me open to liability for sending a car out riding on 1" of its tread.
The question I asked above was a simple one. To determine if there was some performance aspect he was after or if maybe he only had hats that fit on backwards and pants that didn't fit.
So again I ask: What is the point in doing such a thing?
It's purely aesthetics, if that word can properly be applied to such a disaster. Why did ricers used to run 5-inch diameter pipes? Why did they cut their springs so the car ran on the bumpstops? It's a performance-inspired aesthetic taken to a counter-performance extreme. These guys just want "the tuck" because it looks RaCeY.
The real point of negative camber is to have it so when the car is cornering hard, and the body has rolled as much as it can, there's still maybe a degree of negative camber on the outside tire(s) doing most of the work. That's where tires are their happiest. When you're running 5 degrees of camber and you only have 1 degree of body roll, you're cornering with 4 degrees neg camber on the outside, and you're sacrificing grip, pure and simple. Interesting thing is, some fast drifters run extreme amounts of camber, and I still can't figure out why. Back to that "aesthetics" thing.
That's pretty much what I found as I looked. The overall goal is to have the tires as flat and level through as much of suspension travel as is physically possible.
Thanks MFE.
i dont want my tires flat
It builds character and leg strength as you're peddling your way to the corner store to get your mom a loaf of bread (told her that I like toast with my bacon and eggs)....
Oh... and bring me back a pack of smokes.
Bojingles
Well-Known Member
The most camber I've seen on a Mustang is this dude's '03 Cobra here. He has a 2.0 degree front and rear camber. This Cobra is his play car and he doesn't drive it much except for autocross and such. Guy also has a M3 and M5.... Must be nice to be a single air force captain...
jetmech807
10 Year Member
the difference between a jet engine and a fighter pilot is, when you shut down the jet engine it stops whining.
Similar threads
