• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Frpp M-5500 Rear Upper Control Arms, $200 Bucks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikestang63
  • Start date Start date Dec 24, 2013
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor
Admin Dude
Jan 4, 1985
43,107
21,285
234
Box behind Walmart
www.stangnet.com
Apr 9, 2014
#41
  • Apr 9, 2014
  • #41
mikestang63 said:
Quick Update. Went to order the Steeda 555-4094 uppers from Blue Oval and call the guy. He says " Ford discontinued them a long time ago and I don't have any." So why the hell are you listing them on your site then? No answer.

So, guess I will go with a set of stock replacement uppers unless somebody has a good set of the FRPP ones laying around.
Click to expand...


Why not box your uppers yourself then install a set of the stiffer rubber bushings?

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/M...Bushings-AxleDifferential-Side-pair-P543.aspx
 

mikestang63

SN Certified Technician
Aug 27, 2012
11,606
8,859
214
In the garage
Apr 10, 2014
#42
  • Apr 10, 2014
  • #42
Noobz347 said:
Why not box your uppers yourself then install a set of the stiffer rubber bushings?

http://www.maximummotorsports.com/M...Bushings-AxleDifferential-Side-pair-P543.aspx
Click to expand...

Guess that is the plan. I dont have a welder so after the cost of the bushings, plate, getting it welded, and driving back and forth, the extra few bucks for them already done was appealing. Burns my chaps those ass clowns still have the part listed on their website. The guy was like " yeah we've been getting a lot of calls on them." Then why not take it off your site as you don't stock it.
 

7991LXnSHO

wanna catch the space herp
10 Year Member
Sep 1, 2010
7,387
2,745
194
Kearney, NE
Apr 10, 2014
#43
  • Apr 10, 2014
  • #43
On a Panther body (Grand Marquis, Crown Vic), performance website, it states the rear control need to flex to avoid binding and to keep ride quality. I thought it was nuts until I read the long post and related materials. Big sway bars with reasonable springs and shocks are going on my multi use cars.
 

cleanLX

Founding Member
Jan 17, 2001
976
537
144
Apr 10, 2014
#44
  • Apr 10, 2014
  • #44
Sharad said:
And as far as control arms on 12-second street cars go, I dropped three tenths off of my quarter mile time when I upgraded the control arms on my '89 with the stock 5.0. Ran 12.91 @ 103 with a 1.69 60-foot time on the stock motor and street tires.
Click to expand...
In my opinion a 1.69 on aftermarket suspension in a stock 5.0 is not impressive. I've gone 1.69 in a full weight stock motor all stock/original suspension Fox on street tires. Your accomplishment is impressive, I'm certainly not taking that away, but the proof in the pudding reference to the 60' time does not do it for me.
Out of personal obsession and curiosity, what bolt ons did that stock motor have?
You state you are more confident in the car with poly/solid aftermarket arms and that is great. Confidence will always build speed.
I can tell you that I went from stock rear suspension to solid relocated uppers, solid axle end and poly chassis end (or is it the other way around?) lower control arms and it rides more harsh, is less tolerant to movement, and skitters on bumps in corners much worse than when it did before. There is no way it handles better. I guarantee my car is not the only one that has suffered in the handling department as a result of such parts.
As for tire width, it's not a stead fast rule that wider tires will make a car handle worse. But there is certainly a point where a tire becomes wider enough (thats funny) that the contact patch shape and contact pressure are compromised. In 1992-1993 Pontiac made a Cutlass Calais W41. Hear me out. The road car had a sure footed stance with some nice wide rubber. The SCCA Castrol GTX sponsored race car wore much narrower rubber because it offered more performance. I remember one of the rags interviewing the race team engineer. He went on to explain that the road car tire size was chosen by the marketing department for visual effect. He noted also that the Z28 and Corvette road cars were equally handicapped with their wide rubber. That was straight from a GM engineer making statements about the products his employer put into the public hands.


Sometimes it's hard to admit you are wrong.
 

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor
Admin Dude
Jan 4, 1985
43,107
21,285
234
Box behind Walmart
www.stangnet.com
Apr 10, 2014
#45
  • Apr 10, 2014
  • #45
mikestang63 said:
Guess that is the plan. I dont have a welder so after the cost of the bushings, plate, getting it welded, and driving back and forth, the extra few bucks for them already done was appealing. Burns my chaps those ass clowns still have the part listed on their website. The guy was like " yeah we've been getting a lot of calls on them." Then why not take it off your site as you don't stock it.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the removal tool.
 

Sharad

ALWAYS choose the V over the P!!! Wait... what?
Jan 5, 2011
1,562
480
94
Fort Myers, Florida
Apr 19, 2014
#46
  • Apr 19, 2014
  • #46
cleanLX said:
In my opinion a 1.69 on aftermarket suspension in a stock 5.0 is not impressive. I've gone 1.69 in a full weight stock motor all stock/original suspension Fox on street tires. Your accomplishment is impressive, I'm certainly not taking that away, but the proof in the pudding reference to the 60' time does not do it for me.
Out of personal obsession and curiosity, what bolt ons did that stock motor have?
You state you are more confident in the car with poly/solid aftermarket arms and that is great. Confidence will always build speed.
I can tell you that I went from stock rear suspension to solid relocated uppers, solid axle end and poly chassis end (or is it the other way around?) lower control arms and it rides more harsh, is less tolerant to movement, and skitters on bumps in corners much worse than when it did before. There is no way it handles better. I guarantee my car is not the only one that has suffered in the handling department as a result of such parts.
As for tire width, it's not a stead fast rule that wider tires will make a car handle worse. But there is certainly a point where a tire becomes wider enough (thats funny) that the contact patch shape and contact pressure are compromised. In 1992-1993 Pontiac made a Cutlass Calais W41. Hear me out. The road car had a sure footed stance with some nice wide rubber. The SCCA Castrol GTX sponsored race car wore much narrower rubber because it offered more performance. I remember one of the rags interviewing the race team engineer. He went on to explain that the road car tire size was chosen by the marketing department for visual effect. He noted also that the Z28 and Corvette road cars were equally handicapped with their wide rubber. That was straight from a GM engineer making statements about the products his employer put into the public hands.


Sometimes it's hard to admit you are wrong.
Click to expand...

I'll agree to disagree... on basically everything you said.
 

89oem

Mustang Master
Dec 18, 2013
1,456
542
144
Apr 20, 2014
#47
  • Apr 20, 2014
  • #47
Sharad said:
I'll agree to disagree... on basically everything you said.
Click to expand...

i find it amazing in the face of solid physical data from well respected resources you continue to dig in...

it will make me question any advice or product you represent

a better course may be to present counter data from your in house engineers otherwise you are sounding questionable at best.
 

cleanLX

Founding Member
Jan 17, 2001
976
537
144
Apr 20, 2014
#48
  • Apr 20, 2014
  • #48
n/m
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

For Sale 3-owner 1987 Mustang GT, $18K obro, Lancaster CA
  • Bill Cool
  • Oct 6, 2024
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
4
Views
2K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Oct 13, 2024
nickyb
B
Autocrossing my 95 GT convertible
  • Bill95
  • Dec 6, 2021
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
  • 2
Replies
38
Views
5K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Dec 25, 2021
7991LXnSHO
Suspension Adjustable Rear Upper Control Arms
  • My92cashtrap
  • Jan 19, 2020
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
1
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jan 19, 2020
Wayne Waldrep
Fox Rear control arm reviews request
  • 7991LXnSHO
  • Jul 26, 2020
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
12
Views
6K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 28, 2020
revhead347
Could not pass this up .. guess the AOD is out
  • mikestang63
  • Jun 1, 2021
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
14
Views
3K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 7, 2024
FastDriver
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 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?