How well can a fox be made to handle?

[Dangalang]

With a nice suspension setup from maybe Grigg's Racing or Maximum Motorsports, how good can it actually get? Can it compare to high end import cars such as Euro's, Japanese, Italian, etc.

My friend has an M3 and another has an IS300 and it makes me mad how I can't hang with them in the highspeed curves, and can't carve the sharp turns. If my stang could do that, it'd be awesome.

Or would I be better off waiting 'till I can afford the '05?

 

[TIMMY2734]

very, check out corner-carvers.com

 

[Dangalang]

That site didn't tell me too much about mustangs....

 

[90mustangGT]

Maximum Motorsports can make it really handle but the whole suspension system changed.

 

[Fox Saleen 163]

With the suspension in my Sig I have stayed with Sportbikes in the twisties. It completely changed my car. But, another thing you have to consider is weight and weight distribution.

 

[90lxcoupe]

This guy in arizona that my grandfather used to work for has a fox GT with a full maximum motorsports package on it and a twin turbo kit. he races the road course in phoenix and said that he can hang with lencenfelter corvettes(way off on the spelling), and porches with no problem.

 

[L8 MUSL]

How much money do you have?

 

[Iowa91LX]

With my complete Griggs setup and shaved 275 40 17 Toyo RA1s it honestly doesnt even feel like Im in a Fox Body anymore.
Griggs can take a fox body to 1.3Gs in corners with the same tires Im running, basically all the exact same components as me except they run a Watts link rear.
I would hate to drive my car everyday on the street though. A mustang can be made to handle with the top cars, but your going to give up drivability. The cars that are the fastest that you need to watch out for is the corvettes, they have an almost perfect weight distribution, and I do know of a couple of Mustang guys that are racing Z06's becuase they are that good from the factory.

 

[stangbear427]

Put your concerns to rest. They can be made to carve as good and better than the best in the world. Click the link and see for yourself- this is just one example of MM suspensions being put to the test against the best the world has to offer. There are many more, and their suspensions have come a long way since then too. Furthermore, if the MM shop car was that good, imagine what it would have done that day with another 100HP! http://maximummotorsports.com/Slalom.pdf

 

[ECU5.0]

Put your concerns to rest. They can be made to carve as good and better than the best in the world. Click the link and see for yourself- this is just one example of MM suspensions being put to the test against the best the world has to offer. There are many more, and their suspensions have come a long way since then too. Furthermore, if the MM shop car was that good, imagine what it would have done that day with another 100HP! http://maximummotorsports.com/Slalom.pdf

wow, check out the prices of all the other cars around the stang. thats awesome. im starting to save up for a full MM suspension

 

[Michael Yount]

With money, parts and ingenuity just about any car can be made to handle better. In addition to your suspension bits, save up more money for 1) the proper wheels/tires, 2) brakes, and 3) anything you can do to stiffen up the unibody - a proper roll cage is best. The advantages that your friends' M3 and Lexus have that are difficult to duplicate in a reasonably streetable fox body are weight distribution (they are both close to 50/50; very difficult to achieve in the fox body without major modifications) and very stiff unibody structures - a world class suspension needs a structure that won't bend and twist to push against. I think sometimes the real benefit of those much more expensive newer cars is not that they'll accelerate/handle/stop the way they do in the dry, wet, and snow. But that they'll do it while knocking down great gas mileage, being emissions legal, they'll cruise effortlessly and quietly all day long at 120 mph, they'll sit for hours on end in stop and go traffic in August silently idling at 700 rpm with the a/c blasting cold air while you entertain yourself listening to your favorite CD playing through a premium sound system. Now - build your fox body, or any car, to perform comparably in that broad performance umbrella - and you'll spend about the same amount of money.

 

[Michael Yount]

Also, while M&M's compilation of Motortrend's slalom data is one bit of data, performance in the slalom is only one way to measure handling performance. It's pretty good at measuring how well and predictably a vehicle is willing to change direction in that speed envelope. But it tells you absolutely nothing about what's gonna happen when you turn in under braking, when you try to accelerate out of a turn, when choppy pavement is encountered mid turn, what happens in the wet, etc. In short, it's just a snapshot of one element of handling. So, don't run too far with it. If you read a lot of tests, what you'll see is that a car set up to be optimized on say the autocross course, may not work as well on a road course. One set up for the road course, isn't necessarily the best handler in the kind of conditions encountered on the street. The quickest one around the skid pad isn't necessarily the quickest lapper. The list of comparisons goes on and on. You need to know exactly what you're trying to optimize for, and what you're willing to sacrifice - because it's all about compromises. Improve in one area, and you will most likely find that it's at the expense of performance in another area.

 

[bird]

Also, while M&M's compilation of Motortrend's slalom data is one bit of data, performance in the slalom is only one way to measure handling performance. It's pretty good at measuring how well and predictably a vehicle is willing to change direction in that speed envelope. But it tells you absolutely nothing about what's gonna happen when you turn in under braking, when you try to accelerate out of a turn, when choppy pavement is encountered mid turn, what happens in the wet, etc. In short, it's just a snapshot of one element of handling. So, don't run too far with it. If you read a lot of tests, what you'll see is that a car set up to be optimized on say the autocross course, may not work as well on a road course. One set up for the road course, isn't necessarily the best handler in the kind of conditions encountered on the street. The quickest one around the skid pad isn't necessarily the quickest lapper. The list of comparisons goes on and on. You need to know exactly what you're trying to optimize for, and what you're willing to sacrifice - because it's all about compromises. Improve in one area, and you will most likely find that it's at the expense of performance in another area.

Hey Michael,
Your point out some good facts. I'm not trying to flame you, but did you ever drive a Mustang with a Griggs or MM suspension system. Granted, it's not a BMW or Lexus, but it is sure fun to see there smile drop from there faces. The T/A and PHB make a world of difference in the traction and handling IMO.

Rob

 

[TT91]

Anyone have any input on the Steeda 5-link?

 

[Michael Yount]

Rob - have not driven one; but have seen many at the track. No doubt there's a huge improvement -- I wasn't trying to suggest that there wasn't; there clearly is. The suspension folks have put together a nice package. Just trying to point out that 1) there's WAY more to building a great all-around handling street/track car than good slalom numbers, and 2) a big part of what makes those other (much more expensive) cars so much fun is their level of refinement and sophistication, which is difficult to match in any older car -- how well I know that.

Also, I sometimes think that folks get a bit carried away with the 'magic' of a torque arm rear suspension. Crawl under the back of an F-body, a host of SUV's and even the late model Volvo sedans/wagons and you'll find the same set up from the factory. Granted, geometry/length of the arm have been 'adjusted' for the application, but it's certainly not exotic. It's clearly a big improvement over the stock angled-upper arm arrangement. Spend time at the race track however and look at how purpose built racers locate the rear end, and you'll almost always find a properly located parallel 4-link with Panhard rod. The problem on most of our cars is that manufacturers want things like a useable back seat -- often it interferes with where we'd like to place pickup points for the upper control arms.

 

[stangbear427]

Michael, (just wanted to get that out first) following you in this thread I'm agreeing with you and the points you've made. I would like to throw just a little different spin though, on how it vexes you that some of us get so carried away with the torque arms in our stangs (not that we haven't been round and round on it before) -just a twist. To say that there is nothing exotic about having a torque arm in a Mustang (because they are found in SUV's, F-bods and even Volvos) is like saying there is nothing exotic about having a V10 in a Mustang because they are found in big Ford pickup trucks. I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater a bit. You can't compare the Triton to Fords one-off '99 V10 GT (dubbed "Boss"), and you really can't compare an SUV torque arm to one developed by MM or Griggs. It's apples and oranges. Even the F-bods have aftermarket companies making torque arms for them that are far superior design than the ones they had from the factory. Half the articles I've read on the '05 GT claim it has a torque arm. I've seen the rear layout, and it just isn't. It is simply a three link with a panhard, with only one upper control arm. It doesn't look anything like my torque arm, doesn't attatch the same, locate in the same area, and will not even remotely do the same job in even remotely the same way that my MM one does. These two designs aren't even third cousins, nevermind calling them both torque arms. Considering that most true "exotics" don't even run a solid axle at all, technically the IRS in some Thunderbirds and Cobras is by design more "exotic" than any of them- but that isn't really the point. My MM torque arm suspension is exotic because a torque arm was something that Ford never dreamed of giving us in a Fox Mustang. Just like there is nothing magical about a properly located four link, because they all came with four links, the magic isn't the torque arm itself, the magic of the torque arm is what Griggs and MM have done with it for us: the design, not the name. We are psyched because with this design we can handle far better than we could with the design Ford gave us, or any parts that will bolt into the places Ford supplied; while retaining our backseat and without having to back-half our cars. It's almost too good to be true- like magic.

 

[stangbear427]

Anyone have any input on the Steeda 5-link?

Yes actually, several of us do.
http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=320240
Disclaimer: this is an OLD thread and I made some comments about my coilovers that I should probably edit sometime because they were made before I made a rather embarrassing discovery about my installation a month or so later. (with MM's stellar customer support help, I might add)

 

[Michael Yount]

Stangbear - as usual we agree on most of it. "with this design we can handle far better than we could with the design Ford gave us" - yup, I think that's what I said. And you pointed at it without quite touching it - IRS is ideal. We're both saddled with that (heavy) live axle.