first ever undercarriage rear end/suspension shot of the 05 mustang

[v8only]

so I crawled halfway under the car at the knotts show and nobody stopped me. Here's to all of you suspension guru's who have been curious how that 8.8 and the exhaust all fit into place, enjoy!! I lightened them up so they could be seen easier. Rest of car was too low to get under.

 

[spectravp]

Great Job Man! Now that folks, is called dedication!!

 

[shatner saves]

Wow is that fuel tank low! great to see from a handling perspective.

 

[FinlayZJ]

Why again did Ford get rid of the 4-link in favor of a 5-link rear? With the untriangulated uppers and addition of a trac-bar, if you lower it say 2" the axle is going to shift to the driver's side. So now we're going to have to shell out $200 for an adjustable so we can get the stang to track straight if we lower it.

 

[sleeper89]

Why again did Ford get rid of the 4-link in favor of a 5-link rear? With the untriangulated uppers and addition of a trac-bar, if you lower it say 2" the axle is going to shift to the driver's side. So now we're going to have to shell out $200 for an adjustable so we can get the stang to track straight if we lower it.

while that may be true (about the lowering issues) the 5 link will be a far better performer in stock configuration than the 4 link ever was...providing ford did it right. the reason being that the stock 4 link has a LOT of bind in it once you start pushing it at all. in the 5 link setup the control arms can articulate freely as the panhard rod controls lateral movement of the rear end. also, i wouldn't be suprised to see cheap and/or backyard mods for the panhard rod on lowered cars. i know that i personally will choose the 5 link setup any day of the week over the 4 link. even after you factor in additional cost of lowering etc at least you still have a rear that stays square in the car.

-steve

 

[RandyB]

5-link?

It's still a 4-link, but now there is only one upper, two lowers, and the panhard rod. I agree that it's a much better set-up. Why does everyone automatically think they will need to lower it? Hopefully it will sit nice from the get go, along with the wheels fitting flush and without too much fender space.

 

[shatner saves]

Why again did Ford get rid of the 4-link in favor of a 5-link rear? With the untriangulated uppers and addition of a trac-bar, if you lower it say 2" the axle is going to shift to the driver's side. So now we're going to have to shell out $200 for an adjustable so we can get the stang to track straight if we lower it.

A 2" drop sounds pretty extreme. So does $200 for a new panhard rod.


The axle will shift, it's just a question of how much. With the panhard rod being as long as it is, at such a shallow angle, even with a really aggressive drop, I doubt you'd see more than a 1/2" shift. You could almost take care of that with offset panhard rod bushings. If you were really adventurous, you could drill new panhard rod mounting holes.

Edit: I'm bored so I did some math. I don't know the exact measurments so I made some conservative guestimates. If you figure the panhard rod is roughly 3' long, at an angle of about 5 degrees to the ground (at rest), a 2" drop would shift the axle 0.119". A 1" drop, which should be a popular mod, would shift the axle 0.073". Not a big deal. If the panhard rod is longer, which I think it is, the shift would be less.

 

[Pbford]

Thanks!!!

 

[Reimann]

Wow, that is a really nicely manicured lawn!

 

[tjredgt2000]

We should all be thankful that the fuel tank has finally been moved from the "most likely to explode" location to a more protected area!!

 

[numenor27]

We should all be thankful that the fuel tank has finally been moved from the "most likely to explode" location to a more protected area!!

woohoo

 

[ThRippeR]

I just saw the 2005 a few days ago and it really did not look like it needed to be lowered at all. It sits pretty low.

 

[Omegalock]

Yup. It has a very nice ride height and I'm sure the 18s will fill up the wheel wells quite nicely.

 

[torqueIT]

Wow is that fuel tank low! great to see from a handling perspective.

-------------------------------


Can someone say 'Pinto'?

 

[AznStanger3v]

I saw one at the dc auto show and that thing definently doesnt need to be lowered!

 

[SadbutTrue]

actually... this mustang fuel tank is about as far away from the pinto fuel tank as any mustang ever made... most of them were explosion dangers if bumped from behind...

 

[Toney C]

[/QUOTE]


Man I think with the shocks on the outside like they are that's really going to limit the width of the tires you can put on there.

I know that a lot of people put a little wider meat on there cars.

What do you guys think?

 

[rdksek844]

I think it fully depends on what offset rim you use. I read somewhere that moving the shocks outside of their normal position greatly improves vibration dampening.

 

[autoXr1]

Look at the control arms, bushings, and attachment points. Do they look a little flimsy? Has Ford not learned there lesson regarding stamped steel and rubber bushings? This is supposed to be a performance vehicle. I am willing to bet they pushed the control arm instant center geometry off kilter, as well. Oh well, it looks better than what we had, but still looks a little half-@$$ed to me. I hope the aftermarket is paying attention.

Don't get me wrong. I like the improvements they have made, but it seems the corporate bean counters got to the engineers again.

 

[Toney C]

I think it fully depends on what offset rim you use. I read somewhere that moving the shocks outside of their normal position greatly improves vibration dampening.

I wonder how much offset before you start sticking out of the wheel well? I just can't stand that .

I'm just speculating, maybe there's plenty of room for wide tires like you said with the proper off set without sticking out beyond the wheel well.

D amn I can't wait until this car hit the lots. I have so many "Can I do this" questions that's it's killing me.

Anybody else getting as antsy as I am?