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

[shatner saves]

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?

I was thinking the same thing but I don't think it'll be a problem. The lower shock/sway bar mount will acually fit inside a 17" or 18" wheel and the angle of the shocks makes it look like the upper part of the shock shouldn't be a problem either. Look at the 4th picture in the initial post. You can see the right tire tread is just visible, the lower shock/sway bar mount is visible and the shock is angled away from the tire. In the 3rd and 5th photo, on the left side, you can see that the lower mount would also clear the inside of the wheel. I'm confident a 275/40/18 with the right offset will fit no problem. Beyond that, it's risky to speculate. With the deletion of the quad shocks, there might be more room than the current design.

Overall I think it's really good design. They've moved the springs from the trailing links to the top of the axles, which means better control and the links/bushings should take less of a beating, not having to transfer the spring loads. It might also explain why the trailing links look much less beefy than they currently are. The shocks are pushed out farther, also good, and the spings and shocks are a lot closer together and more in line with each other than the current design. This means tuning the springs/shocks to each other becomes less of a "sum of vectors" deal so they should work better together throughout the range of suspension travel.

The addition of a panhard rod can only be a good thing.

The only thing I see that I might have done differently is I would have put the bump rubbers on the chassis instead of the axle. It would be minor difference in unsprung weight, but It's still a difference.

 

[Toney C]

The only thing I see that I might have done differently is I would have put the bump rubbers on the chassis instead of the axle. It would be minor difference in unsprung weight, but It's still a difference.[/QUOTE]


Now your just being plain picky

 

[MRaburn]

I'm just hoping those are already 2 1/2" exhaust pipes plumed through there... no sure if there is any room for more if stocker comes with 2".

Mike

 

[MustangSteve007]

yea um by the looks of things.. changing the exhaust looks like its not going to be that easy... looks like its going to be more of a fishing the pipes through kind of job, rather than slappin em on

 

[~B7~]

Well..................I wouldn't say FIRST EVER pictures of the undercarriage. I submitted some indoor undercarriage photos of the undercarriage from the Dallas Auto Show earlier this year. They're in the gallery section. Then again, the quality of you pictures is much better in the day light.

 

[shatner saves]

yea um by the looks of things.. changing the exhaust looks like its not going to be that easy... looks like its going to be more of a fishing the pipes through kind of job, rather than slappin em on

How is that different from the way it is now? I did my own exhaust (mac headers, h-pipe, cat back) i there was plenty of "fishing" involved.

Just a thought, Cat back systems are going to be about 80% of the exhaust system now, since the only thing "cat forward" is the headers.