• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech

don't buy lower control arms with out spherical bearings

  • Thread starter Thread starter bluelightning
  • Start date Start date Jan 5, 2009
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
B

bluelightning

New Member
May 30, 2008
15
0
0
orlando
Jan 5, 2009
#1
  • Jan 5, 2009
  • #1
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

To hell with your Mustang, I want to see your HOG!
Jul 1, 2007
513
4
19
Southern Indiana
Jan 5, 2009
#2
  • Jan 5, 2009
  • #2
So does MM and UPR. You'll probably get for granatelli
 

98stangv8

Active Member
Oct 3, 2003
1,036
0
36
fayetteville, nc
Jan 5, 2009
#3
  • Jan 5, 2009
  • #3
02nightmaregt said:
So does MM and UPR. You'll probably get for granatelli
Click to expand...


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

waiting for the next hack atta
Founding Member
Nov 22, 2001
3,501
28
119
Motor City
Jan 6, 2009
#4
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #4
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

10 Year Member
Dec 6, 2007
1,484
135
94
SE Georgia
Jan 6, 2009
#5
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #5
i felt like i was reading an advertisement from a magazine or something.
 

Stark77

Member
Jun 11, 2008
501
0
16
Tallahassee, FL
Jan 6, 2009
#6
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #6
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

10 Year Member
Jan 31, 2003
3,125
81
99
Canada
Jan 6, 2009
#7
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #7
"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.
 
B

bluelightning

New Member
May 30, 2008
15
0
0
orlando
Jan 6, 2009
#8
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #8
wow sorry i brought it up

Stark77 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 .
 
B

bluelightning

New Member
May 30, 2008
15
0
0
orlando
Jan 6, 2009
#9
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #9
good point

trinity_gt said:
"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.
Click to expand...
yes i agree but the spherical bushing is a nice way to upgrade your suspension without spending much.
 

SVT32VDOHC

waiting for the next hack atta
Founding Member
Nov 22, 2001
3,501
28
119
Motor City
Jan 6, 2009
#10
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #10
flstang65 said:
i felt like i was reading an advertisement from a magazine or something.
Click to expand...

 
B

bwahl602

New Member
Dec 13, 2008
30
0
0
Jan 6, 2009
#11
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #11
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

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Jan 6, 2009
#12
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #12
flstang65 said:
i felt like i was reading an advertisement from a magazine or something.
Click to expand...

.....that post has cut & paste written all over it.
 
2

2002BLGT

Well-Known Member
Dec 18, 2003
2,945
4
59
Bedford VA
Jan 6, 2009
#13
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #13
HOORAY for copy and paste
 
J

jprovence

New Member
May 20, 2007
195
0
0
Albany, OR
Jan 6, 2009
#14
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #14
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

10 Year Member
Jan 31, 2003
3,125
81
99
Canada
Jan 6, 2009
#15
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #15
Gearbanger 101 said:
.....that post has cut & paste written all over it.
Click to expand...

Indeed. For example:

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

WTF?
 
B

bwahl602

New Member
Dec 13, 2008
30
0
0
Jan 6, 2009
#16
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #16
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.
 
J

jprovence

New Member
May 20, 2007
195
0
0
Albany, OR
Jan 6, 2009
#17
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #17
bwahl602 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Jan 6, 2009
#18
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #18
trinity_gt said:
Indeed. For example:

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

WTF?
Click to expand...

....busted!!!
 
J

jprovence

New Member
May 20, 2007
195
0
0
Albany, OR
Jan 6, 2009
#19
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #19
if anything, the guy inspired discussion...
 

Stark77

Member
Jun 11, 2008
501
0
16
Tallahassee, FL
Jan 6, 2009
#20
  • Jan 6, 2009
  • #20
Yes - but can we change his username to JoeBiden? They both seem to be good at copying and pasting.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

New Products From J&M Products - 1979-1998 & 1999-2004 Race/Extreme Duty Rear Lower Control Arms
  • J&M Products
  • Oct 9, 2025
  • Vendor Sponsor Forums
Replies
0
Views
312
Vendor Sponsor Forums Oct 9, 2025
J&M Products
Fox Alignment Suggestions
  • PonyGTrider
  • Jul 12, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
477
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 13, 2025
PonyGTrider
J&M Products Launches New Knuckle to Toe Link Bearing Kits for 2015+ Ford Mustang IRS
  • MRaburn
  • Mar 6, 2026
  • 2015 - 2023 (S550) Mustang -General/Talk
Replies
0
Views
195
2015 - 2023 (S550) Mustang -General/Talk Mar 6, 2026
MRaburn
Progress Thread 88 Notched Fox
  • NotchedGarage
  • Jul 15, 2023
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
12
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 21, 2024
Flyboy60
F
Where do I find rubber control arm bushings??
  • opihinalu
  • Apr 26, 2021
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 27, 2021
Mustang5L5
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?